Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

Tees (Newport) Bridge Bill [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Gulf Operations

Miss Lestor: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Navy vessels are currently deployed in the Gulf; and what impact this has on their availability for other duties.

Mr. Ted Garrett: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Navy vessels are currently deployed in the Gulf; and what impact this has on their availability for other duties.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): There are currently three Royal Navy ships and one Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessel deployed in the area of the Gulf. The Royal Navy's commitment in the Gulf inevitably limits the availability of ships for other tasks. All the vessels could, however, be recalled in support of NATO in the event of an emergency.

Miss Lestor: Does the Minister agree that the time is approaching when we should consider reducing our military presence in the Gulf? As the Iran-Iraq war is over and the risks to commercial shipping have been considerably lessened, the reduction would not simply be a goodwill gesture—which I believe is needed—but would release Royal Navy vessels for other areas where they might be required.

Mr. Hamilton: I remind the hon. Lady that no treaty has been signed to end that war. We believe that it would be inappropriate to begin to withdraw our commitment before that happens. However, these matters are constantly kept under review.

Mr. Garrett: Will the Minister convey my thanks to all the personnel who served in the Gulf during that extremely difficult period? Will he assure the House that the vessels will be fully repaired and maintained when they are pulled back to the United Kingdom? Some of the Fleet Auxiliaries will be ready for major refits. When will the contract for HMS Southampton be announced?

Mr. Hamilton: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman when the contract for HMS Southampton will be announced.
However, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement is looking at that matter very closely. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks about the role of the Royal Navy in the Gulf. The Royal Navy did sterling work, which was much appreciated by everyone. We must bear in mind that the Royal Navy escorted more ships than all the other navies in the area put together.

Mr. Mates: Contrary to what the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) suggested, will my hon. Friend the Minister please ensure that our presence in the Gulf—it has been in the area now for nine years, it has been unobtrusive and highly professional and it has acted well in the cause of preserving the peace—is not allowed to fall below the level which my hon. Friend considers necessary?

Mr. Hamilton: I can give my hon. Friend that commitment. It is very important that we maintain a presence in the Gulf for the foreseeable future.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should maintain a presence there because we owe it to all those who gave their lives in north Africa and in the middle east in the defence of the oil supplies so that the United Kingdom could continue the war against Hitler? Our presence in the Gulf and in north Africa was necessary then and it would be quite wrong now, just because there happens to be a temporary cessation of hostilities in the area, to reduce that essential presence which safeguards the traffic routes.

Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We want to see significantly greater reductions in the tension in the area. It would be good if a peace treaty could be arrived at between Iran and Iraq and the area made more secure than it is today. I understand my hon. Friend's point about the sacrifices that people made in the past to ensure that the oil flowed.

Mr. Tony Banks: What information has the Minister about the number of ships which have re-flagged to take advantage of the protection provided by the Armilla patrol? Is it not now time to ask the owners or nations from which those ships originally re-flagged to pay a contribution? Why should the British taxpayer have to pay for other ships to be escorted through the Gulf?.

Mr. Hamilton: In general terms, we believe that the patrol has made a valuable contribution to the security of the area. Although there was a degree of re-flagging, we cannot ask for contributions from nations. We have made an important contribution to the security of the area.

Chemical Weapons

Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution his Department is making to the Geneva negotiations on a chemical weapons convention.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): The negotiation of a comprehensive, global and effectively verifiable ban on chemical weapons is a major Government and NATO arms control priority. As the House knows, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary takes the lead on this and other arms control negotiations. However, my Department contributes in a number of ways to the Geneva negotiations,


particularly through the provision of military, technical and scientific advice both in Geneva and, by close liaison with the Foreign Office in London.

Mr. Moss: Is not my right hon. Friend as puzzled as I am that in all the time that the Russians recently spent in Britain they never once sought to refute the allegations, widely carried in the British press, that their stockpile of chemical weapons is some 10 times the size that they claim? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is about time that there was a little more glasnost from the Soviet Union with regard to its chemical weapon capability?

Mr. Younger: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. As I think my hon. Friend will know, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised that issue last week with Mr. Gorbachev and took the opportunity to emphasise our commitment to a global and verifiable ban. However, Mr. Gorbachev produced no further information on that matter.

Mr. Robertson: Does the Secretary of State think that the Government's position is helped by the fact that increasing evidence—some of which has been verified by his Department—of the use of chemical weapons by Iraq against its own Kurdish civilian population is being greeted in the United Kingdom not by proper condemnation but by a doubling of trade credit to Iraq?

Mr. Younger: I cannot confirm what the hon. Gentleman says, but some evidence has been put about of the use of chemical weapons on the Kurdish minority by Iraq. We would regard that as a serious matter because chemical weapons are undesirable in all circumstances.

Mr. Brazier: Did Mr. Gorbachev, in his welcome discussions here, offer to open up to international inspection those parts of the Soviet Union's chemical weapons supply which were not opened up to us as promised during our last visit to the Soviet Union?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point but I am afraid that no such offer has been made. As it is a long time since Britain possessed any chemical weapons, it is disappointing that in the new climate of openness which is supposed to exist there does not yet seem to be openness on the subject of chemical weapons, which we believe should be banned on a world-wide basis.

Fylingdales Early Warning Station

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what agreement there is with the United States of America about sharing early warning information from Fylingdales early warning station and ensuring it can be used independently by the United Kingdom Government.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: The ballistic missile early warning system at Fylingdales is under RAF command and control. Early warning information from the system is disseminated in parallel to the United Kingdom and United States authorities for their own use without restriction.

Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that the United States has done all the modernisation? Is he confident that the United States would pass on information to the British Government if the British Government were contemplating using Trident in some way of which the United States

did not approve? Surely if we are to have a credible deterrent of our own we should have our own early warning system and not be dependent on the Americans who might not pass on the information. Or is all that now irrelevant? Have we a guarantee from the Soviet Union that if it intends to launch any missiles at us it will ring up and tell us?

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is working on the wrong assumption. We share the information that comes from Fylingdales. We receive it in parallel, so there is no question of one nation having it and giving it to the other, or vice versa. The costs of modernisation are also being shared. The United States will be paying for the radar and we shall be paying for the infrastructure that goes with it. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the RAF operates Fylingdales early warning station, so we can ensure that we obtain information from it—and we do.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Does my hon. Friend accept that the question is flawed because the international early warning system, in which Fylingdales plays so important a part, is based on the principle of mutual corroboration? Will he take this opportunity to send to the men and women who have worked throughout the past 25 years at RAF Fylingdales, which I had the pleasure of visiting recently, his congratulations on the expertise and professionalism with which they conduct their task?

Mr. Hamilton: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend and I will pass on his message of congratulation on a job extremely well done.

Belgian Defence Minister

Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to meet the Belgian Defence Minister; and what matters will be discussed.

. Ms. Short: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to meet the Belgian Defence Minister; and what matters will be discussed.

Mr. Younger: I met Mr. Coeme yesterday. We discussed a range of subjects of mutual defence interest.

Mrs. Fyfe: As the Belgian Government do not share the British Government's obsession with modernising nuclear weapons, can the Secretary of State tell us whether they are starry-eyed idealists or dupes of Moscow?

Mr. Younger: The hon. Lady is not correct in her assumption. It was made perfectly clear to me that the Belgian Government entirely subscribe to NATO's deterrent strategy. They also fully agree that weapons systems must be kept up to date. They are also strongly against any idea of a third zero in shorter-range weapons.

Mr. Wilkinson: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that when he next meets his Belgian counterpart he will be able to say that the United Kingdom—in concert, one hopes, with the other NORTHAG partner, the Dutch—has either agreed a defined specification for a new light attack helicopter or has procured the Apache AH64, as NORTHAG badly needs improved anti-armour capability and as the Belgians have recently procured about 50 Agusta 109 utility helicopters?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point, but that subject was not raised either by me or by Mr. Coeme


in our discussions yesterday. The Belgian air force has a number of collaborative projects with NATO, particularly in respect of training.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: In view of the Belgian Government's well-publicised attitude, is not a consequence of enforced modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons at this time likely to be a weakening of the North Atlantic Alliance which may possibly result in Federal Germany being driven towards neutralism? What account of those risks do the Government take in their policy on that issue?

Mr. Younger: Those matters must all be carefully discussed and taken into account before any decisions are reached on keeping up to date the weapons that NATO has. It is worth remembering that the Soviet Union has itself modernised at least 95 per cent. of its shorter-range weapons in recent years. We must be careful not to leave it with an incovenanted advantage.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: As the Belgians are taking over the presidency of the Council of Ministers of the Western European Union from us, when my right hon. Friend next meets the Belgian Defence Minister will he try to build on the excellent out-of-area co-operation that we saw in the Gulf so that we have some sort of set plan if anything similar occurs in the future?

Mr. Younger: Yes, that matter was covered in the Western European Union ministerial meeting last week, when it was decided that the operations jointly undertaken in the Gulf were extremely successful and a good example of the way in which European nations can co-operate. We shall bear in mind that a similar form of organisation might be available in future needs for out-of-area activities.

Mr. O'Neill: Will the Secretary of State confirm that at the forthcoming NATO summit, the Belgian Government will not support the early modernisation of short-range weapons and will not contribute to any process by which a signal could be given to the American Congress that a replacement for Lance would be the unanimous wish of NATO?

Mr. Younger: That matter was certainly not covered in my discussions yesterday. It is for the Belgian Government to explain their own attitude. I understand that the Belgian Prime Minister is doing that in the Belgian Parliament today. I think that he had better do that himself, in his own language. As to Belgium's position in the Alliance, the hon. Gentleman will know that Belgium has been a very sound ally in NATO and totally subscribes to NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence based on nuclear weapons.

Anti-armour Weapon Systems

Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what anti-armour weapon systems are available to the British Army of the Rhine.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): The British Army of the Rhine has a balance of anti-armour systems which includes Challenger and Chieftain main battle tanks; Lynx helicopters armed with TOW missiles; Swingfire and Milan missiles; infantry anti-tank weapons; and mines.

Mr. Knight: Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite the proposed cuts in Warsaw pact conventional forces. its capability for sudden, large-scale offensive operations remains strong? That being so, are not the British Government absolutely right in maintaining a mix of anti-armour weapons systems, including tanks and helicopters, to meet this ever-present threat?

Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend is right. It has long been a feature of the Warsaw pact forces that they have a large predominance of assault and rapid attack forces, particularly main battle tanks. My hon. Friend is right to say that our assessments conclude that the right way to counter tanks is with a balance of anti-armour weapons.

Mr. Duffy: Will the Minister confirm that there is concern in the British Army of the Rhine about its ability to defend itself against Warsaw pact tanks? Will he also confirm that there are even greater symmetries on both sides in anti-tank weapons than in tanks, and that there is an impressive improvement in Soviet tank technology? Does he agree that the answer may lie not so much in more weapons in any of the categories that he mentioned but in smarter ones? What is the present position on Trigat development?

Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that not only are the latest Soviet battle tanks highly capable, and have explosive-reactive armour, but there has been a pattern over the years of new and improved Soviet main battle tanks arriving at regular intervals. At the moment we assess that our current equipment can match the present threat, and we have invested in a number of improvements which are under way, including—as the hon. Gentleman rightly identifies—medium-range and long-range Trigat, which will play an important part in future anti-tank battle.

Sir Jim Spicer: Will my hon. Friend explain why both the United States and the German armed forces give a much higher priority to the use of helicopters in an anti-tank role than we do within our Rhine army?

Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend will be aware that we are currently assessing and keeping closely under review the role of the helicopter in anti-tank battle. Some of our NATO allies, for reasons of their own, decide to give more predominance to helicopters. This is an important subject and one that we are keeping closely under review.

Conventional Forces

Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much more in real terms his Department has spent on conventional forces since 1978–79.

Mr. Younger: Up to the end of the financial year 1987–88, some £20 billion more had been spent, in real terms, on conventional forces than if spending had continued at 1978–79 levels. This figure takes into account GDP inflation during the intervening period and excludes. the costs of both the Falklands garrison and nuclear strategic forces.

Mr. Tredinnick: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that 95 per cent. of the increase in defence spending since 1978–79 has gone towards conventional forces? Will he give some examples of how this additional money for conventional forces has been spent?

Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend that the figure represents an enormous increase in the resources provided by the Government for conventional weapons, and has enabled us to provide resources, including 64 new ships, seven regiments of Challenger tanks and more than 500 new aircraft for the RAF.

Mr. Benn: Is it not a plain fact that the present level of defence expenditure in this country, the United States and the Soviet Union is far beyond that which is either necessary or possible for those countries to bear? Is it not clear that when Mr. Gorbachev says he wants to disarm, the reason why people believe him is because he also says that he wants to raise the standard of living of the Soviet people, which is what they want? There is now a much greater awareness in Britain that the present level of defence expenditure is starving the Health Service, education, the housing programme and other public services of the funds that they so urgently need.

Mr. Younger: There cannot be anything more urgent than ensuring that the country is safe and the people protected. However, as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) will fully realise, if he thinks about it, thanks to the Government's policies and NATO, we are now able to negotiate reductions in weapons with the Soviet Union from a position of safety without imperilling our own security. The right hon. Gentleman should be pleased about that.

Sir Antony Buck: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the figures that he announced should put an end to suggestions that conventional armed forces have been starved of funds because of our deployment of Trident and other nuclear weapons?

Mr. Younger: My hon. and learned Friend is correct. As I have said all along, the Trident programme is not only necessary but extremely good value for money. We have managed not only to achieve that but to make an enormous increase in the provision of conventional weapons at the same time.

Mr. James Lamond: Surely the Secretary of State heard President Gorbachev spell out once again at the Guildhall last Friday the unilateral reductions that Russia is making in conventional forces and call on the rest of the world to do the same. As an excellent opportunity arose in the talks following the Vienna agreement, should not the Secretary of State, instead of boasting about excessive expenditure, be taking positive initiatives to ensure that we help the world to achieve lasting peace?

Mr. Younger: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is a little behind the times. Mr. Gorbachev spelt out some of his proposed reductions, which we warmly welcome, but he did not mention that while he has been talking about reductions we have been making them. We have reduced our nuclear warheads in Europe by over one third in the past 10 years, which is the other side of the equation that the hon. Gentleman should ponder.

Sir Dudley Smith: Despite what has been said recently, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a big difference between the conventional forces of the Warsaw pact and those of NATO and a total imbalance in chemical weapons?

Mr. Younger: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a large difference. Even supposing that the Soviet Union had completed all the reductions that it has proposed but not yet effected, there would still be an enormous disparity against the West in tanks, guns and aircraft. None of the figures produced last week were able to counter that.

Mr. Rogers: The Secretary of State wants the penny and the bun. First, he boasted of how much more the Government were spending on defence, but then he said "Look how much we have reduced expenditure." He cannot have it both ways. Without boasting of the achievements of the Labour Government, is it not true that many of the decisions that resulted in the present level of conventional spending were taken in 1978 by Lord Mulley and that, contrary to what the Secretary of State would have the House believe, spending on conventional defence expressed as a percentage of gross domestic product is declining and is forecast to do so in the White Paper?

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman will know better than I precisely what decisions the previous Labour Government took, but it is clear that they did not provide the resources to carry them through. This Government, because of a much increased gross domestic product, have been able to provide extra money, which has enabled our forces not only to be properly paid but to have modern, new equipment, which they were denied by the cuts made by the Labour Administration.

Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last had discussions with the chief of general staff regarding recruiting levels in the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve, and the co-operation of employers in releasing employees for training.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Michael Neubert): Consultation on recruitment and employer support, as with other matters relating to the Territorial Army, is a continuous process through the formal Ministry of Defence committee structure and normal official channels. As regards employer support, we launched a major campaign last year, recommended by the national employer liaison committee, and I am pleased to say that the response thus far has been very encouraging, with more than 500 companies pledging their firm support to the reserve forces.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the Territorial associations are being allocated adequate resources to support and sustain the successful campaign that he mentioned? Does he agree that the so-called demographic trough makes it especially important to maintain effective follow-up with employers for volunteers?

Mr. Neubert: Yes, I can confirm that there is full Government commitment to the financing of our present Territorial strength and, in particular, the number of man training days planned. As I said, we are very encouraged at the response from employers, because the 500 companies already signed up represent 30 per cent. of the national private sector work force, and when this is


combined with the home Civil Service and the Scottish Office, it represents a substantial sector of employment. We intend to pursue this policy and to tackle smaller firms and professional partnerships as well.

Mr. Ron Brown: Will the Minister agree that, if money is to be spent effectively, members of the Territorial Army have a right to form trade unions, or is that extending democracy too far?

Mr. Neubert: I have to respond that that is not part of our tradition, and long may it remain so.

Mr. Conway: Does my hon. Friend agree that important aspects of retention in the Territorial Army include not just the very generous level of bounty and payment, but the opportunities to train with Regular units and to partake in exercises which, more often than not, are with the British Army of the Rhine rather than Salisbury plain or Otterburn training area?

Mr. Neubert: My hon. Friend experiences that opportunity and takes full advantage of it. It is a fact that the Territorials are equipped, as are the Regulars, for their role, and this means that they have the most modern equipment and are constantly kept in the forefront of our battle plans.

RAF Bruggen

Mr. Illsley: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to visit Royal Air Force Bruggen.

Mr. Younger: I last visited RAF Bruggen in 1986 and I have no plans to visit the station again in the near future.

Mr. Illsley: Is the Minister seeking to replace the free-fall nuclear WE177 bomb, which is used on Tornado aircraft from RAF Bruggen, and will the replacement be capable of use in areas of central Europe, where the use of nuclear weapons is now restricted by the INF agreement?

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman is slightly misconceiving the INF agreement, which outlaws a certain type of missile—a land-based missile with a range of over 500 km— anywhere in the world. It does not, unfortunately, control where such missiles, should they exist, would land. The replacement of the free-fall bombs will be necessary by the mid-1990s, because the present weapons systems will have become out of date and unsuitable for use.

Mr. Mans: Will my right hon. Friend agree with me that it is necessary to replace these free-fall weapons not only because the present generation will have become out of date, but because the Russians have a similar weapon and we need one to maintain our deterrent effect into the next century with the Tornado aircraft?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The Soviet Union is equipping itself with air-launched air-to-ground missiles. It is also worth reminding the House that over the past five years the Russians have modernised 95 per cent. of their shorter-range missiles, including SS21s, Scud launchers and Frog 7 launchers. They have all been modernised in the Warsaw pact, and that is something we must therefore take account of.

Deep Battle Concept

Mr. Hague: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made as to whether the Soviet Union is abandoning its concept of the deep battle.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: In the last two years Soviet statements have claimed that its military doctrine is now of an exclusively defensive nature. Although we welcome such statements, it should not be forgotten that the Soviets still retain the capability to conduct operations deep into NATO territory and to launch a surprise attack.

Mr. Hague: Will my hon. Friend agree that the conclusion to be drawn from his answer is that, however welcome the latest proposed reductions in Soviet armed forces may be, the forces of NATO must continue to be fully prepared and fully modernised? Can he tell us anything of how radical the changes in Warsaw pact organisation, doctrine and equipment would have to be For it to be said that the pact had changed from an offensive to a defensive military posture?

Mr. Hamilton: There would of course have to be major structural changes in the deployment of Soviet forces and their training would have to change as well. So it would mean a complete change throughout the whole of the Soviet military structure.

Mr. Cryer: Is this word "modernisation" not jargon for cheating on the INF agreement? Will not the 133 non-nuclear nations who were signatories to the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty change their minds about not deploying or manufacturing nuclear weapons if the United Kingdom starts to cheat in an atmosphere of mutual peace and force reductions generated by the Soviet Union? Would that not be a very dangerous step, and will the Government stop cheating and think again?

Mr. Hamilton: There is no question of the United Kingdom cheating on the INF treaty. The problems of the non-proliferation treaty have been with us for some time. We suspect that there are countries that are deploying the nuclear capability. That is regrettable.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Russian forces, particularly the naval forces, are changing their tactics and that the British armed forces need to respond? Has there been a major review of Royal Navy equipment and tactics, particularly as the Soviet Union has decided to keep its naval forces deployed in a defensive rather than in a blue sea role?

Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend must be careful. The fact that the Soviets may be exercising their naval forces rather less than they did in the past may be for reasons of economy. It does not mean that they are reducing their capability, which is what we must judge them by.

Mr. Sean Hughes: In view of the Minister's answers, will he do the House the courtesy of answering the question that the Secretary of State refused to answer at the last defence Question Time? Do the Government take seriously the threat of a Warsaw pact short-range nuclear attack on NATO's fixed assets in Germany?.

Mr. Hamilton: The Government take seriously and place importance on a flexible response. We believe that we should have modern and up-to-date weapons to respond over a whole range of different capabilities.

US Defence Secretary

Mr. Douglas: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to meet the Secretary of Defence of the United States of America to discuss matters of mutual interest.

Mr. Patnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to meet his new United States of America counterpart; and what matters will be discussed.

Mr. Younger: I hope to meet Mr. Cheney at the meeting of NATO's nuclear planning group in Brussels next week to discuss a range of matters of mutual interest.

Mr. Douglas: May I respectfully ask the Secretary of State to raise with Mr. Cheney the incident relating to the Soviet submarine at the weekend? Is there not a need to reach an international agreement and understanding, particularly among those powers that have nuclear weapons and nuclear-powered submarines, that there should be disclosure about what happens to such vessels when an accident or an incident takes place? Is it not essential that vessels of this type should not fall into the hands of people like Gaddafi? Is it not essential that no power should sell to such people vessels of that type, which could be extremely dangerous to the peace of the world?

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman makes some valid points. Any accident of that kind, whoever is the owner of the ship in question, must cause us all the gravest concern. I note what the hon. Gentleman has said and I shall discuss the matter with Mr. Cheney when I meet him.

Mr. Patnick: Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the United States Defence Secretary the United States commitment to and support of NATO?

Mr. Younger: In a general review of NATO's affairs with Mr. Cheney, I expect to cover these matters generally. I am sure that Mr. Cheney will be able to confirm that the new Administration—like, indeed, all previous Administrations—are firm believers in the effectiveness of NATO as an organisation that is entirely defensive and aims to reduce armaments from a position of strength.

Mr. Cohen: Does the Secretary of State recall telling the House last July that no decisions had been made on NATO force modernisation? Why is it, then, that six weeks previously the United States started work on its new design facilities at RAF Upper Heyford to take new Fills? Will the Secretary of State discuss with the United States Defence Secretary why he is misleading the House?

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman is not correct. No decisions have been taken on the modernisation of any NATO facilities of that kind. Any alternations or improvements that the United States wishes to make to its bases in this country will first have to receive the British Government's permission. Therefore, I deny both the hon. Gentleman's points.

Sir Peter Emery: When my right hon. Friend meets Mr. Cheney and the other Defence Ministers, will he refer them to the speech made by Mr. Tindemans, the Belgian

Foreign Minister, at the joint NATO meeting organised by ambassador Abshire, at which a number of hon. Members were present when Mr. Tindemans made it absolutely clear that the Belgian Government would want to support the modernisation of all weapons, nuclear and otherwise, within the NATO armoury?.

Mr. Younger: I thank my hon. Friend for reminding the House about that. The Belgian Government, like all the other members of the Western European Union, have subscribed to the platform of the Western European Union, which clearly commits the whole Alliance to a strategy based on nuclear deterrence.

Mr. O'Neill: Will the Secretary of State reflect on his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) about the construction changes which are to take place at Upper Heyford? Will he look at the military construction appropriations report for 1990 which was presented to the House of Representatives of the United States, because it contains references to major constructions at Upper Heyford as a consequence of a decision to deploy additional aircraft to that site? Will he consider that question and put his reply on record in the Library or write to me or my hon. Friend and correct us, because we seem to be going wrong? It appears that the United States Congress is spending money on something which the Secretary of State seems to know nothing about.

Mr. Younger: Of course I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman has said and write to him, but I stress that the question is whether works are taking place as a result of NATO decisions on modernisation. There have been no such decisions; therefore, that is a clear answer to a clear question.

Mr. Rathbone: On a different aspect of possible co-operation, will my right hon. Friend find out in his discussions whether there is room for initiatives by Britain and the United States in offering military assistance to countries in south America which have to fight the war against the drug barons, to help them restore law and order to their own countries?

Mr. Younger: I note what my hon. Friend says. It is not our policy to detach any forces for operations in south America, but we would always be prepared to discuss with our allies any way we could help in the battle against drugs.

NATO

Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; and what subjects he intends to discuss.

Mr. Younger: I expect to see Dr. Woerner at next week's meeting of NATO's nuclear planning group in Brussels. We shall discuss a range of subjects of mutual interest.

Mr. Wallace: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his informative reply. Will he be discussing the SRAM-T missile and whether the Government intend to fit it to NATO aircraft and ultimately to the European fighter aircraft? Is he aware that General Ronald Yates in evidence to a congressional sub-committee indicated that the missile was designed to restore capability lost by the


INF treaty? Do the Government accept that restoration is necessary and will Britain play its part in that? Does he consider it justified, given the credit that the Government have tried to take for being party to the INF treaty?

Mr. Younger: I do not expect to discuss that issue with Dr. Woerner when I meet him next week, but I should make it absolutely clear once again that the INF treaty applies to ground-based intermediate-range missiles. We fully support that treaty which adopted NATO's proposals. There is no question of our wishing to go back on that treaty in any respect, but we have to maintain for our future defence a range of options that we could use if we were threatened with an attack which we could contain by no other means, and in that we are supported by the entire NATO Alliance.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: As the proportion of Soviet GDP spent on defence has increased in recent years, does my right hon. Friend agree that NATO's defence policy must be predicated on what the Soviets do and not what they say?.

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. We must look quite realistically at the capabilities of the countries concerned, and we must equip ourselves to defend ourselves in all foreseeable circumstances. Expressions of increase or decrease on the Soviet defence budget are not worth very much until we know the level of that budget.

Mr. Wilson: When the Secretary of State meets the Secretary General of NATO will he discuss the targeting policy for nuclear weapons for the duration of the Queen's visit to Moscow? Does he agree that there would be a certain irony in extending the hand of friendship on one side and, on the other side, threatening the use, implied or real, of nuclear weapons?

Mr. Younger: I do not think there is any likelihood of my discussing with Dr. Woerner any aspects of nuclear targeting during the Queen's visit to Moscow.

Defence Policy (Scottish Representations)

Mr. David Porter: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from Scotland on defence policy since 11 March; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Younger: I have received no representations from Scotland specifically on defence policy, although I do, of course, receive a large volume of correspondence on various defence issues from all parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Porter: Does my right hon. Friend realise that on that day, at the Labour party conference in Scotland, pronouncements were made advocating unilateralism?

Mr. Younger: Yes, I did observe that at a Labour party conference in Perth on that date—[HoN. MEMBERS: "It was Inverness."]—resolutions were passed urging that the review of policy—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us hear the answer.

Mr. Younger: At that conference, resolutions were passed urging that following the review of policy that has taken place in the party, it adhere to unilateralism in all its

features. It occurred to me to wonder whether the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) supported that, or agreed with it.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Maxton: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 April.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings today.

Mr. Maxton: Will the Prime Minister tell my 79-year-old, blind constituent, Mr. William Bradley, whether she thinks that it is fair that on 1 April 1988 his income was £52·55, that on 1 April 1989 it was £52·55, and that on 1 April 1990 and 1 April 1991 it will be £52·55? if she thinks that that is fair, would she care to justify it?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member is taking a particular case which, I assume from what he says, was the subject of transitional protection, so that when the whole system was simplified and improved, and a lot more money was spent on it, people were protected from having a reduction in their cash. The hon. Gentleman takes a particular case in which there will be no real increase. May I, therefore, take credit for the fact that 98 per cent. of all pensioners will receive a cash increase with the coming uprating?

Mr. Arbuthnot: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Arbuthnot: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to comment on the National Health Service White Paper proposals on doctors' budgets? Will she confirm that the proposals are entirely voluntary, helpful guidelines to be available to those who want them, rather than cash limits imposed on those who do not?

The Prime Minister: Yes, whether or not a doctor wishes to hold his own budget, provided that he is within the eligible group, is a decision for him to take. The fact that some doctors do not wish to do it should not deny others the right to do it if they want. I noticed in a recent article in the New Statesman and Society a report of one doctor from the Royal College of General Practitioners saying:
Why should general practitioners resign over a plan which embodies so much of what the Royal College has been working for over the years?

Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister think that all senior civil servants who make Government leaks should be prosecuted?

The Prime Minister: Prosecution is not a matter for me, as the right hon. Gentleman knows.

Mr. Kinnock: From that answer by the Head of Government may I take it that she has decided to give a public interest defence to Mr. Powell and Mr. Ingham?

The Prime Minister: No. I have nothing further to add —[Interruption.]—nothing further to add to the many answers given in statements, speeches and replies to questions. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman has nothing real to complain about.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: During her busy day will my right hon. Friend find time to join me in congratulating my distinguished constituent, Nick Faldo, on his outstanding achievement on winning the American Masters? That, together with the equally important result achieved by Sandy Lyle last year, has illustrated that this country leads the world in golf.

The Prime Minister: I gladly congratulate Nick Faldo on this year's result. It was a very exciting tournament and a very exciting play-off. It was one of the best things that we have seen on television for a long time.

Dr. Owen: Given that the leader of the Transport and General Workers Union wants to renegotiate the terms and conditions under which the abolition of the dock labour scheme could go ahead, will the Prime Minister confirm that she would be ready—if such negotiations produced changes in the terms and given that the mineworkers' redundancy terms are much more generous —to amend the legislation as it goes through the House?

The Prime Minister: No. We believe that the restrictive practices contained in the present dock labour scheme are highly damaging to the prosperity of ports and highly damaging of the prospects of this country in 1992. There is only one thing to do and that is to abolish the scheme; then those ports that suffer under it at present will have the chance to become as prosperous as those ports that do not belong to it. The redundancy terms, at up to £35,000 for redundant dockers, are generous.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the grave concern among family practitioners about some of the proposals regarding the new way in which they would work under their contracts? Will she listen to their representations and recognise that for family practitioners the key dimension in the end is care for the sick?

The Prime Minister: Obviously the changes in the National Health Service White Paper and in the accompanying detailed documents are meant to improve the service to the patient. I notice again from an article in the New Statesman and Society that it says:
The white paper is neither anti-socialist nor anti-NHS …the gain for patients will be immeasurable".
I believe that my hon. Friend is referring to the contract arrangements which pre-dated the White Paper. With regard to the matters in the detailed consultation papers they are, of course, for consultation. They are not meant to be a specific blueprint and we will, of course, consider representations.

Mr. Terry Fields: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Fields: Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether it was she who gave permission to MI5 and mercenaries to bug telephones, private and public, in Scotland, to bug meetings of Labour politicians and to bug their telephones in Liverpool, to infiltrate and bug

meetings of opponents to nuclear power in other parts of the country and to tap the telephones of foreign politicians? If she did not do it, who gave permission? What is her link with David Coughlan and when can we expect criminal proceedings to commence against those people engaged in illegal activities?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to look up the legislation passed in this House which governs telephone interception. That legislation is followed meticulously and an annual report is made upon it.

Sir William Shelton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on Good Friday seven of my Conservative councillors in Lambeth found their houses daubed with death threats? On Sunday last three of those seven received threats by telephone to kill them and to burn down their, expletive deleted, houses. Will she condemn such outrageous extremist political action and urge the police to increase surveillance and activity so as to apprehend those wretches as soon as they can?

The Prime Minister: The events which my hon. Friend describes are utterly disgraceful and totally contrary to democracy. I shall, of course, do as my hon. Friend says, and I hope that anyone who has information will not hesitate to give it to the police to see that such behaviour is stopped and, if need be, the people who perpetrated it are brought before the courts.

Mr. Maclennan: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Maclennan: Would the Prime Minister be prepared to consider the proposal made by Nobel prize winner Professor Abdus Salam at the Edinburgh science festival on Saturday that an international science centre should be established in Caithness drawing on the resources of that community to provide facilities for advanced scientists coming from the Third world to developed countries?.

The Prime Minister: I saw a proposal for an international science centre in Edinburgh. I did not see one for Caithness. For a feasibility study to be conducted into any proposal for an international science centre—I think that such a proposal has been put forward by Edinburgh district council —an application for money should be made to the Scottish Development Agency for its consideration. No such formal request has yet been made to that agency. The hon. Gentleman—or anybody from Edinburgh—should first go to the SDA.

Mr. Baldry: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Baldry: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole House welcomes the progress that was made in Anglo-Soviet relations last week, not least those of us who were fortunate enough to be among the last Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation to the Soviet Union? But does my right hon. Friend agree that Mr. Gorbachev's comments about modernising NATO's short-range nuclear weapons were somewhat cynical having regard to


what the Soviet Union has been doing with its short-range nuclear weapons in the last five years? Does she agree that the concession on uranium and plutonium could better be put into context?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. We estimate that about 95 per cent. of Soviet short-range nuclear missile systems in the forward area have been modernised or replaced in the last five years and that some 200 SS21 missiles have been introduced since 1981. By contrast, NATO's Lance missile was introduced in 1972 and therefore needs modernisation. As for uranium and plutonium, as I have said, the Soviet Union has very substantial stockpiles and of course weapons grade uranium and plutonium do not deteriorate. The closure of three plutonium production reactors would leave four others still in operation.

Mr. Loyden: Will the Prime Minister say why, following a most peaceful period in the docks industry, with ports such as Liverpool being in profit, she should cause a political strike? Is it because we have a bloody-minded Minister, a bloody-minded Cabinet and a bloody-minded Prime Minister who are prepared to take political action to achieve an industrial end?

The Prime Minister: No. The Minister, Ministers, the Government and the Prime Minister are concerned that all our docks should be working at maximum efficiency and prosperity and that those who are in the hinterlands to docks should have the chance of attracting inward investment, just as have those who are in the hinterlands to non-scheme docks. It will be much better and we should be able, when all the ports are working well and economically, to attract a lot of business from the European docklands to this country. Many fishermen who are having difficulty getting their fish landed will welcome our decision.

Mr. Aitken: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Aitken: Will my right hon. Friend soon find time to introduce some major improvements to the highly unsatisfactory methods by which the House continues to scrutinise EEC legislation? Does she agree that it is wrong that an important EC directive such as the one on broadcasting which will be ratified next week, could not be debated in the House? However, perhaps because of lack of scrutiny, that directive has been supported by Home Office Ministers who agreed even to a statutory right of reply being introduced for the European media. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that her Government will now support the same principle by giving a fair wind to the private Member's Right of Reply Bill when it comes back to the House on Friday?

The Prime Minister: I shall attempt to answer the multiple parts of my hon. Friend's question. It is important to have the best possible scrutiny of draft directives before they are debated in the House, especially with the number of them now coming forward, the effect that they will have on our lives and the tendency of the Commission to put far too much detail in them. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Lord President has put some suggestions to the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee for improving the scrutiny that should take place. I understand my hon. Friend's concern about the broadcasting directive. He asked about the private Member's Right of Reply Bill. Of course that is a matter for private Members. Whatever view is taken, it indicates that there is great concern about some of the things that we see in the press today. We may not have the right answer, but we cannot ignore the concern.

North Cormorant Platform

Mr. James Wallace(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the environmental impact of the leak of 50,000 gallons of drilling mud from Shell's North Cormorant platform 100 miles north east of Shetland?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I understand from inquiries made by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland that about 1,140 barrels of oil-based drilling mud were accidentally discharged into the sea yesterday afternoon from the North Cormorant oil and gas production platform. The accident occurred during transfer of the mud from a supply vessel to a holding tank on board the platform. It is believed that there was a mechanical failure in a drainage pipe from one of the holding tanks which led to the leakage of mud about 100 m below the surface of the sea.
The drilling mud contained about 60 per cent. of refined oil. It is expected that the released mud has fallen to the sea bed close to the installation. The spilled mud contained about 680 barrels of oil. The tanks on board the platform were emptied yesterday afternoon, immediately following discovery of the leakage. No further spillage has occurred.
The information received as a result of inquiries indicated that the effect on the environment is minimal. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Energy and I will be seeking a report on the source and impact of the spillage from the responsible authorities and the operators as soon as possible. Furthermore, we have asked Shell to report to us immediately if there is any evidence at all of any adverse environmental impact.

Mr. Wallace: I am grateful to the Minister for his detailed reply. I am sure that he will reassure the House that if Shell report, any sightings of adverse environmental impact immediate action will be taken. Does he agree that, given the present sensitivity about pollution, not least from oil-related installations, merely to look at incidents individually is to miss the whole point that further consideration should be given to an overall examination of the environmental implications of North sea oil developments?.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is yes. In answer to the second part, I should make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that in the wake of the Alaska episode my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Energy asked for an update on how we deal with oil spillages in United Kingdom continental waters. That process is already under way, and if improvements are needed they will be made. Exercises on a considerable scale take place annually and are carried out by the marine pollution control unit of the Department of Transport. The last major one was on 4 July last year, and a smaller exercise was carried out in Humberside on 7 March.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: First, will my hon. Friend confirm that Shell acts very responsibly in relation to matters such as pollution, and indeed safety and other matters? Will he assure the House that he is getting all possible co-operation from the

company, as I am sure he is? Secondly, will he confirm that, if a major pollution problem should arise, there are adequate resources in the area to deal with it, as evidenced by the fact that companies in Aberdeen have been called upon to assist in clearing up pollution in Alaska?.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: With regard to my right hon. Friend's first point, I have had a meeting with a representative from Shell, and I agree with what my right hon. Friend said. The other matter will certainly be followed up with the relevant Departments and we shall do everything in our power to ensure inter-departmental co-operation to effect this very important purpose.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The Minister is being characteristically vague about who is to provide this very important information. When he refers to responsible authorities in the company, does he mean that the Government will be relying almost entirely on the company for further information? Ought he not to be insisting that all Government resources be commanded immediately to inspect the area, continue to monitor and to take positive action with urgency to prevent the pollution having any effect on the marine environment?.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We received information from Shell in the first instance, but I assure the hon. Member that we will check monitoring and that wider surveys are carried out by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries scientists in this matter. It is the responsibility of the operator—in this case Shell—to monitor the oil content of discharges of mud or cuttings around each platform under the powers exercised by the Secretary of State for Energy.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is impossible to eliminate either human or mechanical accidents in any sphere whatsoever and that therefore, as long as we extract oil from the sea and transport it in ships, there will be a risk? The important thing is that we have the resources available to deal with the possible results of that risk. It would seem certain that we do in this case.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We want to reduce risk to an absolute minimum and do everything humanly possible to achieve that purpose. As for safety issues generally, which my hon. Friend touched on indirectly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy is responsible. As my hon. Friend knows, Lord Cullen is now conducting the Piper Alpha public inquiry and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has made it clear that if he makes any recommendations for improvement of the safety regime they will be adopted.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Following the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), does not the Minister consider that there is a difficulty in that all the information that he has given us today has come from the company? When will the independent investigation take place? Does he not consider that there is a real difficulty in that we do not have a system of regulation in the North sea; we have in effect a system of self-regulation?.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Preliminary investigations indicated that isolation of the mud storage tank on the platform failed and that involved the valve and cement plug, we believe, allowing the mud to discharge into the sea


through one of the platform legs about 100 m below sea level. The mud contained approximately 680 barrels of oil out of 1,140 barrels and this sank to the sea bed. There is no visible sign of a slick on the surface. Admittedly, conditions are not particularly good, but I can give the hon. Member the assurance that there will be monitoring as necessary by the appropriate authorities.

Mr. Barry Field: Can my hon. Friend reassure the House that in the review dependence on dispersants will be looked into very carefully, as much of that technology comes from the oil companies which manufacture the dispersants and there are serious misgivings that that means of dealing with a major oil spill will fail, as it has failed in Alaska?.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Energy has asked for an update on how to deal with oil spillages so as to get the most up-to-date advanced technical and technological information to enable us to deal with these matters appropriately in all circumstances.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the Minister stop muttering platitudes about monitoring and updates and acknowledge that it is fairly common practice for unwanted material to find its way over the sides of oil rigs? Is there not an urgent need for effective action by Government Departments to control this practice?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Strong penalties exist. If it is shown, for example, that a discharge is due to want of reasonable care, the operator is liable to penalties under the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1986 of up to £50,000 on summary conviction or an unlimited amount or imprisonment on indictment. If the hon. Gentleman has evidence of misdeeds in the sea outside his constituency he should report them as appropriate.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I note what the Minister has said, and I recognise that there is no surface slick and that the mud has sunk to the sea bed within the 500 m exclusion zone, but surely he accepts that any unintended discharge of as much as 50,000 United States gallons of oil-based mud—even if it is of low toxicity—is a matter for genuine concern, and that the House and the country would expect monitoring to be very tight and extended.
The Minister referred to the circumstances of the discharge. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that the supply vessel, the Edda Fram, started pumping into the storage tank at 1130 hrs yesterday and it was only at 1500 hours, a considerable time later, that someone noticed that the contents of the storage tank were dropping and not rising. That suggests that at least there was something wrong with the surveillance system. In effect, they were pumping through an empty discharge drain straight into the sea for three to four hours before those operating the system became aware that something was wrong. Does not that suggest that there was something wrong with the inspection system and that there is food for thought for the Department?.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes. The hon. Gentleman touches on a relevant point. It was at 11.30 am that the supply vessel commenced pumping and it was at 3 pm that those responsible became concerned that stocks were not building up as expected, exactly as the hon. Gentleman has said. It is important that we should find out exactly why the isolation system failed. Shell is making immediate inquiries and both the Scottish Office and the Department of Energy expect to be kept closely informed. I agree with the points that the hon. Gentleman made.

Points of Order

Mr. Tom Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Arising out of the Prime Minister's answer to the Leader of the Opposition, can you give us guidance about ministerial responsibility? Of course, the Prime Minister is quite right in saying that she is not responsible for prosecutions. But is she not head of the Civil Service? Therefore, are not questions about the behaviour not only of the most senior civil servants but her own intimate personal civil servants, working for her, like Mr. Charles Powell, matters for the Prime Minister?

Mr. Speaker: It is certain that they are not matters for me.

Mr. Eric Martlew: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is about the contempt in which the House is being held by the Secretary of State for Transport. I understand that at this very moment he is making an announcement at the Department of Transport about the Carlisle-Settle railway line. I welcome the decision to keep the line open, under the control of British Rail, which proves to be a defeat for British Rail who wanted to close the line, and a defeat for the Government, who wanted to privatise it. If we look at Hansard, we see that announcements about the Carlisle-Settle line have been made on the Floor of the House and hon. Members could question the Minister on them. Will you, Mr. Speaker, adjourn the House and bring the Minister from his press conference to the Despatch Box to answer the questions that many of us would like to put to him?.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The matter is worse than has been outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) because there appears to have been a deliberate conspiracy to avoid accountability to the House.
The question on page 3084 of today's Order Paper for written answer was handed in only yesterday. I understand that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) issued a statement this morning commenting on the reply to that question. That suggests that some information has been circulated exclusively among Conservative Members about a matter which has been the subject of several debates and more than 30 petitions from all parts of the United Kingdom and from hon. Members on both sides of the House.
When the Secretary of State for Transport said last year that he was minded to close the line, he made a statement to the House following Transport Questions. He deliberately picked out two questions which he could refer to at the end of Question Time through the usual arrangement. This railway is of great interest to many people and many hon. Members have referred to it in oral and written questions. It is monstrously outrageous that we should be denied the right to question the arrangements which the Secretary of State has entered into. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, deprecate such a shoddy conspiracy by the Government.

Mr. Speaker: I was unaware that any statement was being made outside the House. The House well knows that I feel very strongly that statements should first be made in the House.

Mr. Peter Snape: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No. I am still speaking.
Today is an Opposition day and it could well be—although I have no knowledge of this—that arrangements have been discussed through the usual channels about this matter to protect the day's business.

Mr. Snape: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Having listened to the exchanges, and bearing in mind your ruling, it seems that two points arise directly. First, the Secretary of State for Transport held a press conference that was scheduled to start at 3.30 pm. Perhaps you can look into this, Mr. Speaker. Is it not unprecedented, that the Secretary of State is so punch-drunk that he is too terrified to come to the House to announce good news, let alone bad news?.

Mr. Speaker: I have never travelled on the line, but I hope that it is good news. I have heard a lot about it.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. This morning the Select Committee on Procedure held a press conference at 11 o'clock and precisely this abuse of the House was raised in justification of those who seek to frustrate our procedures. If you were to rule that this practice was improper, Ministers would act accordingly and change their practices. When we were asked at the press conference to justify what has been happening, this type of example was raised. The matter is in your hands, Mr. Speaker, and you can resolve it.

Mr. Speaker: It is not in my hands. The House is aware that I am not responsible for organising the business. However, it may well be that an Opposition day is not considered to be an appropriate day to make a statement. I frequently receive representations from hon. Members who complain about not being called because a statement was made on a day when the Opposition had chosen the subject for debate. It is a question of balance. I do not organise the business.

Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that you would agree that one of the roles of the House of Commons, certainly a role of the Opposition, is to identify where abuse and misconduct have occurred and to raise such matters on the Floor of the House. Yesterday I raised a question with the Attorney-General. I do not question your decision, Mr. Speaker, because you must decide these matters. However, yesterday, with regard to his role in the Westland affair, you said that the Attorney-General should not reply because it was not relevant to the question on the Order Paper. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister gave a very evasive reply.
If we know that there was deception, lying and dishonesty over the Westland affair, certainly by Mr. Ingham and Mr. Powell, how can we raise the issue on the Floor of the House? When such deception, dishonesty and outright lies occurred in January 1986 over the Westland affair, why are we silenced and not allowed to raise the matter?.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will be the first to appreciate, because he has been a Member for a long time


and is very experienced, that if he looks at yesterday's Hansard his question had no relevance to the main question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Alan Williams: Further to those points of order, Mr. Speaker. The two points of order relate to each other. You must have gathered by now the profound frustration that is beginning to be felt in the House at the way in which Ministers feel able to ignore the normal conventions and responsibilities. My hon. Friends the Members for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) have just outlined one matter which, on previous occasions, has led you to say that Ministers should make statements in the House rather than outside. However, your advice is continually ignored. In that respect, Mr. Speaker, what do you intend to do to assert the rights of the House?.
That matter relates to the first point of order that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). When does the House have the right to investigate and question the Executive? That power can be operated only if Ministers are not allowed to stand at the Dispatch Box and blatantly say that a matter is not their responsibility when clearly it is. As protector of the rights of the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, how do you intend in future to ensure that where officials of the Prime Minister. the Head of the Civil Service, have created a major constitutional abuse, the House has the right of interrogation that the Prime Minister and her Ministers are attempting to deny it?.

Mr. Speaker: I am surprised that the deputy shadow Leader of the House should put a question in those terms to the Chair. He knows perfectly well that it is not the role of the Chair to organise the business. Furthermore, he is part of the management, through the usual channels of the House. Today is a Supply day and he could have chosen that topic for debate had he wished. It is for the Opposition to choose the subject for debate—he has those opportunities. I am not responsible for what is said from the Dispatch Box, provided that it is in order.
I have deprecated more than enough the fact that statements are made outside the House. I should always prefer statements to be made in the House before they are made to the press, but, equally, the right hon. Gentleman

should bear in mind that that is likely to impinge on Opposition time. That would undoubtedly have been the case today if there had been a statement. These are not matters for me but for the management of the House.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Some of us in the Chamber this afternoon are hoping to listen to the debate on pensions. I am becoming concerned that the Labour party intends to continue making bogus points of order until 10 pm in order to disguise its appalling record on that subject when in government and to disguise the weakness of its policies today. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will put a stop to all this nonsense and let us get on with the debate.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As one of the privileges of the House is that we can attend and vote safely, will you use your good offices to ensure that hon. Members who are hurrying from Norman Shaw and crossing Palace Yard do not suffer the fate that almost befell me of being mowed down by a Government car speeding in through the narrow entrances, a matter which I raised with the relevant Minister at the Department of the Environment last night? When the Division bell goes, one accepts that Ministers and Government cars have to come in, but someone should tell them about speed limits because there is a serious danger to hon. Members and the staff of the House who could well be injured by motor cars whose drivers do not know how to drive and who appear to be in an unnecessary hurry.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman gives me further details of that incident, I shall have it looked into.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Ordered,
That European Community Document No. 4092/89 relating to pesticide residues be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, & c.

Ordered,
That the draft Building Societies (Money Transmission Services) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp; c.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Counting Women's Unremunerated Work

Ms. Mildred Gordon: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require Government departments and other public bodies to include in the production of statistics relating to the gross domestic product and other accounts a calculation of the unremunerated contribution of women; and to include this calculation in the gross national product.
The Bill requires the Government to quantify the unremunerated work of women and to include that quantification in the gross national product. In order to explain the need for the Bill and the gross injustices that it will redress, I shall put before the House facts about the economy that women—particularly the poorest women —have been wanting to give right hon. and hon. Members for many a day.
When I was 16 my parents sent me to secretarial college to learn shorthand, typewriting, bookkeeping and business studies. All over the walls of that building, in large letters, was the slogan "Time is money". Although that time is money is an accepted and obvious economic fact, everywhere in society women's time is squandered as if it were worthless. Today few shops will even say whether goods will be delivered in the morning or the afternoon. The same is true when equipment needs repairing and of meter readings and gas, electric and telephone connections or disconnections. Women's waiting time is expected to be at everyone's disposal.
The daily queues at supermarket checkouts grow on Saturday when women, many of whom have been out to waged work all week, have to plough through their housework on their so-called day off. Of course, those time-wasting queues lower staff costs. Clearly time is money—but it seems that it is women's time that ensures that other people, especially the captains of commerce and industry, make money.
Much of the work that women do is unremunerated and never enters the GNP, as that quantifies only goods and services exchanged for money. However, that unremunerated work, while it is not counted, is certainly counted on. The Government, in closing hospitals and many institutions that provided health care and other services, claim that they will be replaced by community care. However, it is not the community in general that does the caring but women who shoulder the extra burden of time-consuming, back-breaking and emotionally exhausting work for which the Government are refusing to pay. That shift from waged to unwaged caring is not quantified in official statistics, so no one knows just how much money women are saving the Government by picking up the pieces of the shattered welfare state. Again, women's unpaid work is counted upon but not counted.
Most women in waged jobs find themselves at the bottom of the pyramid. They are particularly exploited when they take on part-time work in order to have time for family responsibilities. Even those few women who secure well-paid jobs find that, once they become mothers, their lives too are shaped by the task of bringing up their children—the future labour force—and of caring for others whose work is considered more important than almost everything that women do, whether the women are professionals, cardboard box makers, or are fully occupied at home.
The work of women that is included in the GNP is based on a pedestal of unremunerated, uncounted work. Imagine how much work and responsibility falls on the women in the families of British Rail employees who in a recent accident inquiry revealed that they work a 12-hour day, seven days a week. There is not much chance of those men helping with the housework; all the burden falls on their wives.
It is almost always women who care for those who are ill or who have disabilities. As so-called farmers' wives, they tend kitchen gardens and livestock. They are market traders, shop attendants and bookkeepers in family businesses. They are often secretaries, typists and hostesses, as well as being wives and a status symbol for their professional husbands. It is women who ensure that the flowers are on the church altar and that schools have parent-teacher associations as well as volunteers to make up for education cuts by running jumble sales, mixing paints and coaching young readers.
Women visit ailing relatives and neighbours, especially when meals-on-wheels no longer roll up. Women work overtime to shield families and whole communities from the effects of racism and racist immigration controls, class prejudice, polluted food, water and air, and the economic, physical and emotional devastation of unemployment. None of this skilled, time-consuming life-giving but unwaged work of women is counted in the GNP.
The fact that women are statistically invisible as producers and service providers means that some economists have the cheek to label as marginal these workers without whose vital work society would grind to a halt. The failure to count women's unremunerated work in the gross national product results in a distorted picture of the economy and leads to faulty economic planning, which does not meet the needs of working people. The very same work enters national statistics when performed by those who are paid for their work, such as nannies, nurses, bookkeepers, housekeepers, agricultural workers, physiotherapists, chauffeurs, chefs, interior decorators—the list is almost endless. Endless too are the damaging effects of the monetary and statistical invisibility of the work of housewives. The fact that this work is unwaged and uncounted devalues women's waged work, too.
The many organisational, technical and other practical skills that women develop as housewives gain them little in the waged labour market. One exception to that involves the National Union of Teachers, which was my union for many years. The NUT gained one year's increment for every three years that women spent at home with their own children. This was recognition for some of the work of mothers who return to teaching. However, most of the time the housework women do either full or part-time—before they go to work work in the morning, after they return home at night and at weekends—is not considered work. Only when this unwaged work of women is officially quantified by widening the compass of the GNP will we even begin to know how much time and skill goes into the economy and the production of specific commodities.
I therefore present this Bill, which requires Government Departments and other public bodies to include in the statistics relating to the gross domestic product and other accounts the quantification of the unremunerated work of women—in both the formal and informal sectors of the economy—and to include that calculation in the gross national product.
There is growing international awareness of the need for recognition of the totality of women's contribution to the economy. According to the United Nations, women carry out two thirds of the world's work for 10 per cent. of the income, and own only 1 per cent. of the assets. In July 1985, the United Kingdom Government were represented at the United Nations world conference in Nairobi, Kenya and agreed "Forward Looking Strategies for the Advancement of Women", the final document of the Decade for Women. Paragraph 120—amended by delegates from Sierra Leone, Jordan and Uganda, along the lines put forward by the international wages for housework campaign—committed Governments to include women's unremunerated work in the GNP. The following November, paragraph 120 was singled out as one of the most important decisions of the Decade for Women and ratified by the United Nations General Assembly. My Bill would implement that decision.
Despite their enormous contribution, women are undervalued because so much of their work is unvalued and economically invisible. That has enabled the Government to get away with cutting maternity grants and freezing child benefit—the only money which many women can call their own. Adding up this work makes the unanswerable case that these benefits are rights for work done, not charities.
Economic invisibility keeps older women dependent on their husband's goodwill because, despite a lifetime of serving family and community, there are no pension contributions for unwaged housework. Many a divorced wife lives to see her ex-husband retire from the position which she helped him to obtain on a good pension, while her income is reduced to a bare minimum. The economic invisibility of most women's work has allowed the Government to inch nearer to workfare—the American version of the workhouse—which forces claimants into dead-end jobs to earn their entitlement to income support.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has now been speaking for 10 minutes and should begin to draw her remarks to a close.

Ms. Gordon: Counting women's work would prove that every mother is a working mother and that some of them have two or even three jobs. Counting women's work would make women count by making clear that every woman, whether or not she does waged work, is nevertheless a working woman.
Perhaps the most unjust policy that economic invisibility has permitted is the poll tax, which is levelled at women who have no income. Despite women's enormous contribution, the Government are demanding more. These women will become institutionalised and further dependent on the goodwill of the wage earner. They will be institutionalised into an inferior, vulnerable and archaic position which will invite domestic violence. Women on income support, including mothers, will have 20 per cent. of the poll tax deducted from the household's survival money.
When all the work that women do is finally made visible in the GNP and other official statistics, no one will be able to continue to ignore the extent of dependence of the mighty institutions of the state, industry, commerce and every social organisation throughout the United Kingdom on women's voluntary and involuntary unwaged work.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms. Mildred Gordon, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. John Battle, Mr. Tony Benn, Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, Mr. Eric S. Heffer, Mr. John Hughes, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Ms. Marjorie Mowlam, Ms. Joyce Quin, Mr. Dennis Skinner and Mr. Nigel Spearing.

COUNTING WOMEN'S UNREMUNERATED WORK

Ms. Mildred Gordon accordingly presented a Bill to require Government departments and other public bodies to include in the production of statistics relating to the gross domestic product and other accounts a calculation of the unremunerated contribution of women; and to include this calculation in the gross national product: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 April and to be printed. [Bill 114.]

Opposition Day

[6TH ALLOTTED DAY])

Uprating of Pensions and Other Benefits

Mr. Speaker: We now come to the first Opposition motion, on the uprating of pensions and other benefits. I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. Given that we are starting rather later than I had hoped, I ask Front-Bench spokesmen and Back Benchers to make short contributions.

Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move,
That this House notes that this week pensions and other benefits are increased by 5·9 per cent. at a time when prices are rising by 7·9 per cent. and earnings by 9 per cent.; further notes that if the pension had been uprated since 1979 in line with earnings, under the formula introduced by the Labour Government, a married couple would this week be receiving an additional £17·55 p; records its deep concern at the plight of over half a million pensioners and other claimants who this week do not receive a single penny in uprating; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to extend the full uprating to all pensioners and claimants.
I read daily that preparations are under way to commemorate in May the 10th anniversary of the Prime Minister's election, when she will exceed the time limit that Mr. Gorbachev has thought it prudent to impose as a maximum period for which any elected official can hold senior office in the Soviet Union—a prudent measure to prevent the abuse of power.
Six weeks later, on 13 June, we shall celebrate another 10th anniversary. On that date in 1979, the then Secretary of State for Social Security, who has now been translated to another place, announced to the House that pensions would no longer rise in line with earnings but would be pegged only to prices. That is not quite how he put it. He said that that was the minimum that the Government would do to the pension. If the right hon. Gentleman had been mean with the money, he was generous with the promises. He said:
I should like to make it clear, however, that it remains the Government's firm intention that pensioners and other long-term beneficiaries can confidently look forward to sharing in the increased standards of living of the country as a whole."—[Official Report, 13 June 1979; Vol. 968, c.439.]

Mr. Dennis Skinner: A pack of lies.

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) characteristically commits the Government to rigorous scrutiny. I hope that he will forgive my saying that I am sure that the then Secretary of State meant every word he said. The sad thing is that the Government of which he was a member did not keep a single word of that pledge. Not once in the past decade have pensioners on the basic pension shared in the increased standards of living of the country as a whole. Every year under this Government they have been short-changed.
I wish to be scrupulously fair: it is not the case that pensioners have had no share in the increased living standards of the country. That would be unfair; they have been given a 2 per cent. share. That is the precise amount by which the basic pension has gone up in real terms under this Government, while over the same period average earnings have gone up by 24 per cent.
I heard the Minister for Social Security interviewed on the radio on Sunday, when he entertained me by saying that he was looking forward to this debate with relish in order to contrast the record of his Government with the record of the last Labour Government. There certainly is a contrast. In 10 years this Government have increased the basic pension by 2 per cent.; in five years the last Labour Government increased the basic pension by 20 per cent. in real terms. If that is the contrast the Minister relishes, I give him 10 out of 10 for bravado but one out of 10 for prudence.
Of course, the Secretary of State and the Minister have a well-worn alibi. I have not the slightest doubt that they have been rehearsing it all morning at the Department in front of the mirror to make it sound more convincing. The alibi runs thus: the basic pension does not matter all that much; what matters is the growth in pensioners' total income.
What makes that alibi so breathtaking, so bald that it would take away the breath of any honest jury, is that it rests on a system which this Government inherited from the last Labour Government. On 13 December the Under-Secretary of State, in a reply to a parliamentary question from me, confirmed that the largest single contribution to the growth in real incomes of pensioners was from the state earnings-related pension, designed by the last Labour Government, which has provided two fifths of the increase for which the Government claim credit. The irony is, of course, that the Government have spent the last four years doing the best they can to undermine SERPS and to make sure it does not make the same contribution in the next decade.
It is possible to measure how much the pensioner has been short-changed over the past decade by supposing that the statement made 10 years ago had not been made and that the pension had been uprated in line with earnings, as it would have been under the formula inherited from Labour. A married couple would this week have been receiving £17·55 more than they will get in their pension book this Friday. That is big money. It is very big money to those living on a pension. Yesterday I unveiled what a pensioner might get in a shopping basket for that money. It included a fresh chicken for a Sunday roast; half a dozen oranges, a source of fresh fruit; a packet of tea bags; a jar of instant coffee—even that is now a luxury to many pensioners; a pair of tights; a couple of bars of soap; a cheap brand of talcum powder; two stamps towards the TV licence. The really depressing feature about every item on that list is that nothing there is not likely to disappear within a week in a household of two. Without that extra income, all those items disappear from the weekly budget of that couple.

Mr. John Redwood: rose——

Mr. Cook: If I can just finish this point I will certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman.
The result is that that couple is left with a constant conjuring trick to make ends meet. This was perfectly expressed with complete understatement by Age Concern, Scotland, which said:
Age Concern Scotland staff know of one elderly man who budgets by buying one big item every week. One week the big item is the washing up liquid, the next week toilet rolls. A loss of a couple of pounds per week for someone with this kind of budget is drastic.

Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Does he not agree that pensioners have also benefited under this Government from income from savings, which has gone up dramatically; from the real increases in occupational pensions; and, for the poorest one fifth, from the substantial increase in income support and related payments, particularly for the elderly pensioner, which Conservative Members welcome and which far outstrips anything done in the 1970s?.

Mr. Cook: Of course there have been increases. There have been increases in occupational pensions and, given that the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 was passed by the last Labour Government, we would expect that increase. If the hon. Gentleman looks up the figures, he will find that the bottom quarter of pensioners receive an average of £3·50 a week in occupational pensions. The second bottom quarter received an average of £10·50 a week in occupational pensions. Most of the income of the great majority of pensioners in Britain comes from their basic pension.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that if pensioners had received this week the pension increases that they ought to have received they would even have been able to afford a pair of the special long johns from Harrods that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) suggested, when she was a Minister, they ought to wear to keep warm in winter?.

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend will have to wait until we receive the Department of Trade and Industry report to find out whether it will be possible for pensioners to obtain access to Harrods.
It is possible to measure the short change and the extent to which the Secretary of State had the money to provide extra for pensioners. If he had wanted to do so this year, he certainly had the money. Any doubt that he had the money is removed by a glance at the Government Actuary's report on the national insurance fund. In the financial year that ended last week, the Government expect to make a surplus of contributions over benefits of £2·5 billion. That, alone, is enough to treble this week's increase in the state pension. Nor is that an aberration under this Government. It is an inevitable consequence of benefits increasing in line with prices, although national insurance contributions increase in line with earnings. The Government have become so accustomed to running a surplus on the national insurance fund that the cumulative surplus has almost doubled during the last three years. By April 1990 it will stand at over £10 billion.
To put that staggering sum in terms to which Conservative Members can relate, it is big enough to pay for the Trident submarine programme. There is some reason to fear that that is probably what it is doing. Rather than pass on the benefit of the surpluses to pensioners by way of increased benefits, the Treasury is siphoning them out of the fund for its own use by reducing the Treasury supplement. This financial year—for the first time, I believe, since 1948—not a penny will be paid into the national insurance fund by the Treasury. Contributors are being conned, by accepting deductions from their wages in good faith, that they are paying for benefits to pensioners and other claimants, when in reality what they are paying for is to let the Treasury pocket money that used to be paid into the fund.
The reason why pensions have not increased faster than prices is not because the Government lack the money but because they lack the will. It would take some convincing to persuade most pensioners that this week's increase keeps pace with prices. The increase that pensioners will receive this week is 5·9 per cent., at a time when prices are rising at 7·8 per cent. Some of those prices, most of which are under Government control, are rising even faster. I refer to the increases in the price of gas, fares and water. All those increases have a direct impact on pensioners.

Mr. John Butterfill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cook: I shall give way on this occasion, but as I am mindful of Mr. Speaker's injunction, it will be the last occasion on which I shall give way.

Mr. Butterfill: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the underlying rate of inflation, if we exclude mortgage interest payments which most pensioners do not pay, is only 5·5 per cent. and that therefore the increase in pensions is above the cost of living of most pensioners? On top of that, most pensioners have some investment income, which has improved as a result of high interest rates.

Mr. Cook: We look forward with interest to the Social Security Bill 1990 in which we shall no doubt see the new re-rating of pensions to take account of the increased income from interest on savings. Many pensioners do not pay mortgage interest—that is reflected in the retail prices index—but they spend a much higher proportion of their income on food, fuel and the basic necessities of life. If we look at the increase in the price of those items in the retail prices index, we find that they are rising faster for pensioners than for anybody else.
Another measure that the Government have introduced which will have a direct impact on pensioners took effect only this week.
The introduction of charges for eye tests will hit pensioners harder than anyone else. Boots, which has a quarter of the market, is now charging £10·50 a test. Boots is the market leader, but some opticians are charging up to £15. The optician nearest to the House of Commons is charging £17·50 for an eye test. Even if we confine ourselves to a charge of £10·50, a pensioner would need to club together this year's uprating for four weeks to afford an eye check. There is one clear, inescapable consequence. Many pensioners will now not go for a regular check-up on their eyes, and as a result some of them will put their sight seriously at risk.
It is entirely fair for me to remind the Secretary of State for Social Security that eye-test charges were introduced this month, as he thought them up before his transfer to his present post. He was also in charge of last April's social security changes. I note that the Secretary of State's amendment to the motion invites the House to congratulate the Government on the
simpler, fairer, more flexible system".
It is curious to describe the system as more flexible when it has resulted in all the extra allowances for special needs being abolished. The new, flexible scheme takes no account of claimants' needs, although it still makes rigorous searching scrutiny of individual claimants' means. It is curious to describe the system as fairer when the people who have been hit hardest are the most disabled, frail and invalid people who received the


allowances. They received heating allowance because they are housebound, they received diet allowance because they are chronically sick, and they received laundry allowance because they are incontinent. By definition, those who got most had the most to lose. Tens of thousands of them have already lost it all because the slightest change in circumstances triggers a review whereby they lose all the transitional protection they had last April.
Some people lost transitional protection because they were unwise enough to fall sick. One of the most distressing letters I have received in the past couple of months was from a resident of Midlothian who fell sick in October and transferred to sickness benefit. In February she came off sickness benefit because she was well again and she discovered that because she had been on sickness benefit she had lost transitional protection. Why had she received transitional protection? She had been receiving an extra allowance to pay the bus fare from Midlothian to Edinburgh to visit her elderly mother twice a week. Her mother is in a geriatric hospital where she will be confined until she dies. There is simply no way in which my correspondent can afford to make that trip on her new reduced benefit of £34·90 a week. Because she made the mistake of being sick, she is unable to visit her mother in hospital. Is that fairer? Is that more flexible?.
Other people have lost transitional protection because, under the party of the family, they were unwise enough to take on increased family responsibility. In previous debates, I have drawn the attention of the House to the way in which a couple who have an extra child are entitled to an extra £10·75 addition in income support, but if they are on transitional protection that money is included in the transitional protection.
Since our last debate on the subject, an even worse case has been drawn to my attention. It relates to a single girl in Cheshire. Last April she was receiving £7 a week in allowances for her diet and health needs. At the end of April she gave birth to a child. She was given an additional £10·75 which wiped out the £7 in transitional protection but left her just a little better off as she was given an extra £3·75 a week net to feed the infant. In October the child died, her benefit was reassessed and the £10·75 was taken away, including the £7 she used to receive in transitional protection. She is now on a flat rate of £26·05. This girl has suffered an appalling personal tragedy. The grief and distress that she must experience should be understood by every Member of this House. The understanding that the Government have shown of her personal tragedy is to tell her that it has cost her her benefit. Is that a fairer system? Is that a more flexible system?.
There is another example that I should like to share with the House. This very month the Secretary of State hopes to complete the proceedings on the Social Security Bill, which will force the unemployed into even more desperate efforts to find work. Under the Tory party, of course, some claimants have lost their transitional protection because they were unfortunate enough to succeed in their search for work. One case was brought to me by a citizens' advice bureau in north London.

Mr. Tony Favell: What is unfortunate about finding a job?.

Mr. Cook: If the hon. Gentleman waits, he will discover what is unfortunate about finding a job.
One claimant in north London—a person confined to a wheelchair—through great personal effort, was successful in finding a temporary job, for four weeks. What support did the Government give that disabled person as a demonstration of the virtues of independence and self-reliance? The support they gave him was that when he ceased his four weeks' employment and came back on to benefit he discovered that he had lost his transitional protection because he had been temporarily employed. That is what is unfortunate about his experience. If I may say so, it is a question not of misfortune but of deliberate Government policy. That person is now £4 a week worse off than he would have been if he had never bothered to seek work.
But perhaps the most remarkable contradiction between this Government's rhetoric and the reality of their benefits policy is that, under the party of the owner-occupier, some claimants have lost all, or nearly all, their transitional protection as a result of the rise in the mortgage interest rates, which is the Government's chosen way of fighting inflation. Disability Alliance has drawn my attention to the case of one of its members who was receiving attendance allowance—indicating, as the House will know, that he was severely disabled. Last April he was receiving £17 a week in transitional protection. As a result of the increase in the mortgage interest rate, his interest payments have gone up by £13 a week. His entitlement, of course, has been adjusted to reflect that addition, but every single penny of the £13 comes out of his transitional protection. He is left with additional mortgage expenditure but not an additional penny in benefit.
An interesting feature of that case is that last April a then Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Health and Social Security wrote to the Member of Parliament for this claimant, and ended his letter reassuring the MP by saying:
I do hope that you will now be in a position to reassure Mr. F…that he will not be any worse off in April as a result of the changes.
Here we come to the greatest irony of all. The House will recall that when we debated the April changes we were assured repeatedly that 88 per cent. of claimants would be either better off or no worse off. I should like the Secretary of State to confirm that in calculating that 88 per cent., every one of the cases that I have drawn to the attention of the House in the last 10 minutes was counted. I should like to hear the Secretary of State try to explain to any one of those people that he or she was not a loser as a result of last April's changes. I invite the Secretary of State, or the Minister for Social Security—whichever one of them has the greater brass neck—to repeat to the House now that those people were not losers as a result of the "fairer, more flexible" system that was introduced last April. I cannot hear it from them; I am willing to hear it from any Conservative Back Bencher who voted for the measures that were introduced last April. I am bound to say that if no Conservative Member is prepared to argue that these people were not losers, we can conclude only that the 88 per cent. figure was a mischievous deceit practised upon this House and upon the public.
Not all the people who are on transitional protection have yet lost it. At the end of this week there will still be a minority drawing transitional protection. That is something of a mixed blessing particularly as this week


those who have managed to retain the transitional protection do not get a penny extra in benefit—that is 570,000 claimants, one tenth of all those on income support. By definition none of them got a penny last year either. For two successive years they have experienced a freeze in their income—two years in which prices have gone up by 12 per cent.
Many of those affected have written to me and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. There is a common theme to the letters that they send us: disbelief that even this Government could treat them so badly. They demonstrate a touching and misplaced faith in the belief that the Government cannot let them suffer so badly. I have in front of me one such letter and I shall share only this one with the House. It says:
I have been waiting desperately for this £2·50 rise as my money runs out on a Friday and I have to wait till Tuesday comes round again before I get my pension …as I have angina, kidney complaint and rheumatoid arthritis I am so cold all the time and gas is so dear, on top of all this I am also a diabetic…I cannot afford a proper diet as I never have enough money left and for some time I have been losing weight".
During the radio interview when I heard the Minister perform I was astonished to hear him describe the situation in which that correspondent finds himself as a "soft landing". That suggests that he does not have the remotest grasp of the bleak despair of those half a million people on transitional protection. He is not alone in his incomprehension. The last time we had social security questions one Conservative Member asked of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary whether he was really satisfied that claimants had been warned sufficiently far in advance in order to make other arrangements once their benefit went down. The Under-Secretary replied that all those who were not having their benefit uprated and who were on transitional protection:
will have been informed well in advance."—[Official Report, 6 March 1989 Vol. 148, c. 588.]
Perhaps the Secretary of State can tell us how on earth those claimants are supposed to make other arrangements. What are they supposed to do? How are they supposed to cease to be retired or cease to be disabled? How are they supposed to cease to suffer from arthritis or from angina?.
One reason why it is inexcusable for Conservative Members not to understand the plight of those claimants is the letter which I just read to the House, which was sent from a Conservative constituency. I have received many such letters from Conservative constituencies, such as Harlow, Torquay, Romford and Brentwood. Every Tory Member of Parliament represents at least 1,000 claimants who, this week, will receive not a penny in uprating.
Are those Conservative Members going to leave it to Opposition Members alone to speak for their constituents? Are none of them prepared to speak for those who find themselves in that trap? Are none of them—I appeal to what motivates them most when they vote—more afraid of what their constituents might do to them than what their Whips might do to them? If there are any such people on the Conservative Benches I appeal to them to join us in the Lobby tonight and to vote for a simple act of justice for those bewildered and desperate pensioners who, once again, this week are cheated by their own Government.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Moore): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and add instead thereof:
`notes that it is now one year since the Government introduced a simpler, fairer, more flexible system of income-related benefits and that the uprating which took effect yesterday added a further £2·2 billion to spending on social security, now running at £51 billiion a year; and congratulates the Government on the success of its economic policies which have enabled it not only to fulfil the pledge to maintain the value of the basic retirement pension in line with price movements but also to use the new system of income-related benefits to direct additional help this year of over a quarter of a billion pounds beyond the normal uprating to those in greatest need.'.
The Opposition have produced a motion that I fully understand in the sense that it seeks to challenge fundamentally the adequacy and the methods of the benefit provisions that were introduced a year ago. They are to be debated in part today. I have vivid memories going back beyond the past 10 years to the period when the Labour party had the misfortune to seek to govern our country.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: What about the pensioners?

Mr. Moore: I shall come to the pensioners later in considerable detail.
That the Opposition should table this motion despite their record of incompetence means that I must start my speech by reminding the House of why I am able, as Secretary of State, to spend record sums of money in our country's history on social security—the increases this month attest to that—and how miserably Socialism's record compares with our success.
We were, and will continue to be, re-elected to office because of the absolute inability of Labour Members to understand the reasons for our success. [Interruption.] I will take my time and make the points I wish to make. Opposition Members have tabled the motion and if we have the usual vulgar and irrelevant sedentary interruptions that we get from them, that will only take time out of the time available to them in the debate.
Social security needs, above all—I should have thought that this view was shared by Members in all parts of the House—wealth to be able to care. Without economic success, none of our achievements, or the understandable ambitions and aspirations of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), would be possible.
The uprating this year increases our spending on social security to £51 billion. That is not simply an increase of £2 billion over the previous year, for it conceals additional increases because of the happy reduction in unemployment. That adds about £.1·6 billion to the overall increase in my spending.
That record is not just for this one year. It reflects a decade of achievement in which we have seen increases in social security spending go up by 33 per cent—[Interruption.] I think I know the point that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) is making, albeit from a sedentary position. Would she care to rise and interrupt and make it in more detail? I should be happy to let her do so, and I would point out in reply that, even taking unemployment out of the data, the increase would still have been 27 per cent.
In that decade of achievement, the priorities of the Government have been clearly shown by their spending on social security. We have seen a pattern of increase as a proportion of our overall public expenditure from 25 per cent. in 1978–79 to 31 per cent. this year. That is a sign of the added significance that we place on social security spending compared with Labour Members when they were in office, and the contrast in that improved position within that increased expenditure is telling in terms of social security priorities.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: If there has been such tremendous economic success and the Chancellor has a surplus of £14 billion, why will pensioners on £47·90, many of whom live in my constituency, not receive a penny increase in the next financial year because the Government are clawing back the whole of the transitional allowance? The same will apply the following year in relation to the £1·80. Surely the Government could have afforded to ensure that such pensioners got a real increase.

Mr. Moore: I shall come to the question of pensioners and to the transitional point to which the hon. Gentleman refers. It is an important issue which I shall cover in detail. I wish first to contrast the relative impoverishment of the areas that Labour Members considered, rightly, to be important when they were last in office with the decade of achievement under the Conservatives. To do that I will take only two issues, the disabled and families with children.
The achievements of the last Labour Government on behalf of the disabled were considerable. They increased spending in real terms by 29 per cent.—they increased spending each year in real terms on the disabled by £220 million—and I recognise that achievement. But that was as nothing compared with the achievement of the last decade, during which expenditure on the disabled has increased in real terms by 90 per cent., or an annual average increase of £390 million.
That is the first contrast that I think the House will acknowledge. The second is about families with children, and I am talking about spending in real terms.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that one change that the Government have made applies to people who apply for attendance or mobility allowance? Does he agree that when such an application is granted the money will now be paid not from the date of the claim, if it takes time to process through appeal, but from the time it is granted? Why are people being cheated out of this money, out of disablement help that they need desperately?

Mr. Moore: The position on claimants is unchanged from that under the previous Government. I shall shortly go into more detail about the disabled.
I should like to look at the second area of major social security expenditure because the motion refers to all benefits. That second area is expenditure on families with children. When Britain last had the misfortune to have a Labour Government expenditure was reduced in real terms over five years by 7 per cent. I am sure that the then Labour Government had no intention of doing that, but they were not able to govern with economic success.
In the last decade we have seen an increase in expenditure on families with children of 27 per cent. In addition to this year's uprating, our economic success has allowed us to spend an extra £200 million on a poorer pensioner package which is welcomed by all hon. Members. I shall deal with that later. Again because of our economic success, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was able to announce in his Budget the abolition of the earnings rule for pensioners at a gross public expenditure cost of £375 million. Everybody welcomed that. He was also able to announce because of our economic success the completion of our national insurance contribution changes. That will especially help the lower paid and will cost £2·8 billion in a full year. I could continue to deal with our record, but I think that I should answer the first Opposition charge.

Mr. Dennis Turner: People outside will treat the Secretary of State's contribution with absolute incredulity. Thousands of my constituents are finding it impossible to live through the week. How can the Secretary of State say that the Government have been kind and generous when people know that they cannot live from week to week? This week a lady in my constituency threatened suicide because of water bills pouring through her letter box. She has no possibility of paying them. The Secretary of State's speech is no answer to the real struggle that our people face day by day, in Conservative as well as in Labour constituencies.

Mr. Moore: I must try to proceed. I have taken more interventions than did the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. I have heard statements and not questions.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Moore: No, because, as I have said, I have given way more than the Opposition spokesman.
I have tackled the Opposition's first basic charge about the adequacy of provision. I shall now consider the challenge in the motion to the methods of the new system and our transition to it. Will the Opposition seek to argue for a return to the old, unloved supplementary benefit and single payments system? As they well know, it had flaws which they recognised. It was complex, difficult to understand, extremely intrusive, and absolutely inflexible. Hon. Members did not like the fact that, for example, a family earning £140 a week could be worse off than a family earning half that amount. None of my hon. Friends—I am not certain about Opposition Members—would welcome the return of the abused single payments system under which 80 per cent. of the money went to about 10 per cent. of the claimants.
This is the first anniversary of improvements that are already in. The first of those is income support. Nobody would deny that there is now a simpler system that is faster for claimants. That is important for those who claim and those who advise claimants because it means that they can understand the advice. Those who sought to try to help people through the old supplementary benefit system were not impressed by the complexities of the structure.
The new system is much faster. We are handling claims within five days, rather than nine days, as in March 1988. That is important for those who seek help. The system is also producing—again, I should have thought that this


would be welcomed by Opposition Members if they were in a more serious mood—an 80 per cent. success rate for the claimants compared with 73 per cent. previously.
The error rate—another important feature of a system designed to help people—has improved from 12 per cent. to 8·3 per cent. Furthermore, as I illustrated last year and in this week's benefits improvements with regard to child premiums, it is easier to target help more accurately as a consequence of the new income support system.
Family credit, again, is infinitely better than family income support. A total of £422 million has been spent in the first year in comparison with £180 million on family income supplement. I should have thought that that would be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I should also have thought that the House would be welcoming the fact that payments are averaging £25 a week. The expenditure percentage take-up so far is too low; it is 65 per cent. and I am launching a major new campaign to increase it. But the expenditure is more than double the FIS of a year ago.
I should have thought also that the House would wish to support the changes in the disablement arrangements. Last year, under the old scheme, 70 per cent. of long-term sick and disabled claimants were getting additional payments averaging £5·34 per week. I will not lay too much stress on the fact that under Labour the figure was not 70 per cent. but 38 per cent. Now all 270,000 are getting the disability premium, which is running at £13·70. I should have thought that that would be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I should have expected the House to welcome also the fact that, while under the old system 4,500 severely disabled people were getting domestic assistance additions averaging £6·35 per week, now 7,000 are getting severe disability premiums at £26·20. Again, I should have thought that that was something to be welcomed by all hon. Members.
Beyond that, the new system is much more flexible. My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and I said that we would monitor the system and seek to change it if necessary, and we have been able to do so, as all hon. Members know, not just last year but three times this year.

Mr. Martin Redmond (Don Valley): I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. Will he accept the simple truth that there are many elderly disabled people worse off under his regulations? What steps will he take to ensure that those people are brought back up to standard?

Mr. Moore: I always listen to the hon. Gentleman. I was trying to illustrate that in terms of the new versus the old system there have been enormous improvements for the disabled. I said, as did my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security, that we would watch, monitor and seek to improve the system. We have already made major changes in a relatively short period and I will continue to watch the area to which the hon. Gentleman particularly draws my attention.
I will come in a moment to pensioners, but I think it right first to address the point made by the hon. Member for Livingston about transitional protection. As he well knows, one cannot change any system in such a way that most will gain or be unaffected without some doing relatively less well. The Government promised in 1986—we have the economic success to fulfil our promises—that we would protect income support recipients from cash

losses during the changes. Clearly, that protection reduces as entitlement rises with each uprating. If it did not, that would mean keeping the old system for ever with all its inequities. The hon. Member for Livingston has mentioned quite a lot in the media, and in the House briefly today, the nature of the old system of additions. Hon. Members should remember—sometimes people forget—that something like 40 per cent. of income support recipients were not in receipt, under that incredibly complex system, of additions of any kind. Furthermore, the average addition was running at £3·57 and, although this is not mentioned very often, the whole of expenditure on the heating addition of more than £400 million was put into the income support rate.
However, I recognise the point which the hon. Gentleman has made and I can confirm to the House, because I think it right to do so, that 3·25 million income support recipients will receive their uprating in full, over half a million will receive partial increases and, as he rightly said, nearly 600,000 will receive no increase at all. But the vast majority of claimants on income support——

Mr. Favell: A great deal has been said about the transitional provisions. However, but for the transitional provisions, would there not have been a two-tier system for people living in identical circumstances, old claimants and new claimants? That would be unfair and wholly unacceptable to many hon. Members and certainly to new claimants.

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is right. I was trying desperately to be non-political and helpful to the Opposition.
I remind the Opposition of what happened when they last attempted to make changes in the social security system; I think it was in 1976 when they were going through another process with the International Monetary Fund. Memories of those days are clear. [Interruption.] I will take plenty of time to make the point. Obviously the Opposition have memories of that time when they were trying to change the system from family allowances and child tax allowances to child benefit. I am not now talking about the £1·4 billion of which they cheated families with children in one year. In the face of economic failure they also had to reduce provision in cash terms by £300 million.
I have been led astray and I shall go back to the point that I was seeking to make, which was that the vast majority of claimants on income support;87 per cent. —will have an increase. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said today in the Chamber, 98 per cent. of pensioners will get an increase, as will practically all couples with children.

Mr. Robin Cook: Before the Secretary of State leaves that passage, will he answer the question that I put to him in my speech and confirm that every single one of the cases that I described, who have lost transitional protection in the past year, would have been counted in the 88 per cent. that he claimed last April would be no worse off as a result of the changes?

Mr. Moore: I said then, and I say again, that it is impossible without detailed notice of all the cases concerned to answer precisely. I am assuming, of course, that they were included. I will look at the individual cases; I always do. Of course, I will come back to the hon.


Gentleman, as I always do, but I will not go into a detailed commitment on those cases now. I cannot possibly do so without examining the details.
I shall go on to deal with pensioners, on whom the hon. Member for Livingston based most of his speech. I thought that the hon. Gentleman classically fell into the Socialist trap. It was a perfect illustration of the way in which the Opposition seek to argue the issue. They are obsessed with only one part of the pension equation—the level of the state retirement pension. I shall give sufficient illustrations for the House to understand the comparisons. For pensioners the true measure of economic well-being —no doubt the hon. Gentleman thought I might say this —is their total income. That is why the Government's approach throughout this decade contains two vital elements, not one.
The first is our pledge to increase pensions in line with prices to provide a secure foundation for income in retirement. The second is to pursue policies to keep inflation under control to safeguard the pensioner's income from other sources. [Interruption.] I shall illustrate the success in a moment. The comparisons should shock Opposition Members. The success of our policy versus the failure of Labour's promise is a fact of history that I shall illustrate. [Interruption.] If Opposition Members think that Labour Governments are utterly irrelevant, I cannot say that I disagree with that concept. But they have to learn to live with the reality of what they sought to do when in office.
I want to consider first the relative record of the way in which pensioners lived under two Governments, Labour and Conservative, remembering that we have been happy to look after 1 million more pensioners, but still our record is outstanding. Throughout our period of office the growth in net income has averaged 3 per cent. per year to produce a total increase in net income of 23 per cent. versus a miserable 3 per cent. in total throughout the whole Labour period of office. Secondly, my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) and Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) were very conscious of the role of savings.
What an appalling record there was under Labour. Throughout their period of office savings lost their value. [Interruption.] Those who are denying the role of savings for the pensioner will get a bigger shock at the next election. Under Labour, savings went down by 3·4 per cent. per year. In all they lost 16 per cent. of their value throughout the Labour period in office. For the eight years to 1986—we only have figures until then—savings increased by 7 per cent. per year, or 64 per cent. in all.
I saw the hon. Member for Livingston on television yesterday with wonderful charts, talking very properly about how pensioners should share in our prosperity. Let me remind him of the reality of sharing under Labour and what happened to the pensioner then. The hon. Gentleman talked on television yesterday about the pensioner needing to share in a successful growth of earnings and the economy. Let me tell him what happened. I shall give him exact comparisons.
In comparison to the average earnings of all manual workers in 1974 the pensioner was receiving 63 per cent. —[Interruption.] I will come to the Conservative figures in a second. Hon. Members will not like them. Between 1974 and 1979 the pensioner saw his percentage of the average

manual worker's income go down, not up, from 63 per cent. to 60 per cent. Was that sharing in the national earnings and prosperity? That was the price of Labour's failure.
Since then, the pensioner's share has gone up, not from 60 per cent. to 63 per cent., but to 66 per cent. I can see Opposition Members on the Front Bench nodding and chatting. No doubt they are saying, "Of course, he is now arguing about the average pensioner." Let me give them other figures that they have not heard—the figures for those who have no income other than state benefits and their state pension income. What happened to them under the five years of Labour government? Their income went from 32 per cent. of the average earnings of all manual workers, not down happily, but up by 1 per cent. That was the achievement of Labour. Under the Conservative Government their income has gone up, not by 1 per cent., but from 33 per cent. to 37 per cent. That is what is called sharing in the prosperity of the rest of the community.

Mr. Robin Cook: rose——

Mr. Moore: No; I have already given way. This is an abuse. If the hon. Gentleman will sit down, I shall give him the figures.

Mr. Cook: Those figures are wrong. They are fabricated.

Mr. Moore: I object. I shall now repeat carefully and precisely the figures that I have obtained from my officials. There are two groups of figures. First, would the hon. Gentleman like me to repeat the figures for the average pensioner, which he seemed to accept, or does he just want me to give him the figures for the pensioner who has no income other than state benefits? I shall repeat the figures, which are the figures obtained from my Department—[AN HON. MEMBER: "For what years?"] I will give the precise years. They are the latest family expenditure survey data because, of course, that is what I bring to the House. I repeat that a pensioner with no private income, whose only income is from the state, through his state pension and benefits, in 1974 would have received in comparison to the average of all manual workers 32 per cent. I acknowledge that by 1979 that had gone up to 33 per cent. By 1986, the latest figures I have from the FES data, it was up to 37 per cent.

Mr. Cook: No.

Mr. Moore: It is no good the hon. Gentleman saying no.

Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. I have before me a table prepared by the Library's statistical section which I believe is accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House to be a source of impeccable objectivity and reliability. I have a copy of the table of figures from which the Secretary of State is quoting. The figures show that the Secretary of State was correct with regard to a married pensioner between 1974 and 1979. However, the figures do not rise between 1979 and 1989. They actually drop from 32·6 to 26·1 per cent. between 1979 and 1989. Those are figures produced by the House of Commons Library. I invite hon. Members to question whether the statisticians who advise hon. Members on both sides of the House can be relied upon better than the Secretary of State.

Mr. Moore: These figures come from my Department. They were obtained from the economic advisers office. The hon. Member for Livingston knows full well that I do not use data other than that which has been placed in the House of Commons Library. I will consider the figures to which the hon. Gentleman referred. However, I repeat that the figures in my possession to 1986, the latest figures available from the latest thorough FES data, take the figure up to 37 per cent.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The figures given by the Secretary of State have been challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). The Secretary of State says that he will reconsider the figures. Will the Secretary of State give a clear commitment that the Minister for Social Security, when he replies, will try to clarify the position so that the House and pensioners outside this place, who know very well what——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Mr. Moore.

Mr. Moore: Of course that was not a point of order. I did not retract one iota of what I had said. The hon. Member for Livingston was talking about Library data. I have not seen those figures—[Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Livingston will contain himself. The figures to which he referred relate to 1989. The hon. Member for Livingston may not be aware that the latest full FES data relate to 1986 and it was on the basis of those figures that I was giving the full, accurate data. I stand by that data because it reflects the latest full data which show an accurate comparison.
I want to illustrate the improving position in society. The hon. Member for Livingston quite rightly drew attention, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham, to the position of pensioners in relation to the poorest in society. The hon. Member for Livingston neglected to draw the attention of the House to the fact that in 1979 a total of 38 per cent. of pensioners comprised the bottom one fifth of the population. Happily today, only 24 per cent. of pensioners occupy that position. There has been a significant improvement in their relative position.
I agree with my hon. Friends and with Opposition Members that that is not enough. I am not satisfied and that is why I have brought forward a poorer pensioner package which will increase considerably the position of many pensioners in the autumn. [Interruption.] I wonder whether the hon. Member for Livingston could possibly pay attention to me for a moment because I want to correct what I know he would want me to correct, which are one or two unfortunate inaccuracies which he made in a radio interview on 10 April in the "Today" programme.
I fully understand that it is not always easy to keep all kinds of figures in mind at any one moment, but the hon. Member for Livingston referred to the increase as a token increase, going only to those on income support, only to those who are over 75. I must remind the House that it is not a token increase. It goes to 2·6 million people including approximately 1·4 million who are above income support level who will receive help in the form of housing benefit. It also includes 340,000 disabled people and, within the income support group, it includes 1·22 million pensioners on income support. That is not an insignificant number, as

I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House will appreciate. Therefore, many couples over 75 can see increases this year of more than 11 per cent.

Mr. Lofthouse: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Moore: Mr. Speaker invited us to be brief and I have answered many interventions. I want to finish my remarks now.
The date 11 April is an anniversary of which the Government can be proud. Our system for delivering benefits to the most needy had fallen into sad disarray. It was outdated, inflexible, unfair and bewildering in its complexity. We tackled that problem and overcame the nonsenses of the past. But Britain's prosperity, which the Government's policies have fostered, has given us the resources to do far more.

Mr. Lofthouse: Will the Secretary of State give way now?

Mr. Moore: I am trying to finish, as the hon. Gentleman is aware.
We have been able to protect the poorest against the impact of change without cash loss and we are using the improved system to direct still further help, flexibly and surely, to where it is most needed. We are doing all that on top of a massive commitment of resources to social security which is higher now, as all hon. Members have acknowledged, than ever before in our history. That is the surest testament to our economic success, based on capitalist principles of market enterprise. Economic success is at the heart of our more generous provision. It is a heart with the strength to care. I urge the House to support the Government's amendment.

Mr. Jack Ashley: The difference between the Secretary of State's speech and reality shows that he lives on a different planet. It was unbelievable to hear the right hon. Gentleman make such claims. First, he said that he was trying to be non-political and then he peppered his speech with a series of party political points, not many of which were valid. He also failed to respond to the challenges of my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), in particular the challenge about the 88 per cent. of people who will be better off or no worse off. The Secretary of State fell at that fence. That was his Becher's Brook.
The Secretary of State also made the mistake of claiming that the Tory party will be re-elected because of its policies on social security. That is the last thing that the Tories would be re-elected for. Social security is one of the Government's many Achilles heels. They have failed abysmally.
The truth underlying this debate is that Ministers have deliberately tried to change people's perceptions of social security. To those in desperate need, social security used to be a reassurance that our civilised society would not desert them. That was very important for them. They thought that it would ease their poverty, edge them away frorn disaster and lend a friendly and dependable hand in times of need. That does not apply any more.
The Government have turned social security into dirty words. They have sullied compassion and scoffed at what they call the "dependency culture". If anything makes me sick, it is the sight of well-heeled politicians complaining


about the poor. The miserly uprating of a miserable system of benefits is one of the disgraceful aspects of that despicable attitude.
One would expect the Government's aggressive and parsimonious approach to be softened when they dealt with disabled people. However, that does not apply with this Government. Disabled people cannot stand on their own feet and their problems cannot be attributed to lack of will or enterprise. However, they have also become the targets of Government marksmen, the Ministers who are picking off the poor. Those same Ministers are boasting to the country that the Government have a £14 billion Budget surplus.
Disabled people were not included in the social security review. The Secretary of State promised them a review of their own when the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys studies are completed later this year. However, although they were not included in the review, they were greatly affected by the social security changes as no fewer than 75 per cent. of disabled people rely on social security.
The Government have boasted of their generous increase in money for disabled people, but individual disabled people are little better off. The main change has been that more disabled people are claiming their benefits. When the Minister makes his grandiose claims, he is misleading the House because individual disabled people are not better off. More disabled people are applying for benefits which they badly need because of the squalor into which they have been plunged by the Government.
The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State claim that there have been significant increases in the mobility allowance. However, increases in petrol and other costs for cars have been even greater. Therefore, that is a bogus claim. The basic fact is that many disabled people have lost out as a direct consequence of Government policies.
When the Secretary of State talks about flexibility, he is talking nonsense. Disabled people have lost flexibility as a result of changes imposed by the Government. They have lost individual help. The most severely disabled people now have to turn to the independent Disabled Living Foundation, which provides handouts, not payments as of right. It is outside the state system. There is no right of appeal. People must accept the decisions that are made. Where else does one have such a system in a civilised society? Moreover, the system receives inadequate publicity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston mentioned transitional payments in his eloquent and splendid speech, and he was right to do so. The Secretary of State was wrong to dismiss worries about transitional payments. Ministers made a clever move when they introduced transitional payments because they promised that there would be no immediate loss of benefit. Some innocent disabled people believed that assurance, which gagged the protests and held back an avalanche of complaints when the changes were first made.
It is only now that transitional payments are being understood. Prices are soaring and those on transitional payments have no overall increase in income. There will not be any such increase until income falls to the level that the Government deem appropriate, when it will be much less than it was in the first place. That is the check of the transitional payments. My hon. Friend was right to attack

that. The scheme is a fundamental error. The real hurt will come later this year. Incomes will be frozen while inflation soars. What kind of Government can hit the disabled in that way while at the same time boasting of their great economic success? The Secretary of State referred to "economic success" at least four times. How can he boast about that and at the same time hit the severely disabled in this way? It is disgraceful.
What hope do disabled people have for the future? They did have hope for the future, but they were told to wait for the completion of the OPCS survey when the Government would respond to their plight—and some plight it is. When people become disabled before retirement, they have a fearful time under the present Government, as Labour Members recognise. They have only a one-in-three chance of getting a job. On average, their income is only half that of an able-bodied person, and that was before the social security changes which the Disability Alliance, accurately quoted by my hon. Friend, estimates has made 1 million disabled people worse off. They are the people we are speaking about today.
When the Minister for Social Security replies, he should tell us what has happened to the long-awaited promised review for disabled people. It is a punctured balloon. In a letter to Ian Bruce, the director general of the Royal National Institute for the Blind, on 27 February 1989, the Minister said:
However, it would be wrong to assume at this stage that we will proceed to a review on the same lines as the social security reviews in 1984–85; that might well delay things unnecessarily. For that reason, I don't see much purpose in our discussing the terms of reference and composition of a review team.
Some letter that.
We do not know what will happen. Disabled people have been waiting for the review, but it may not be a full one. I do not usually make forecasts in the House because they are difficult things to make, but I shall make a forecast now of what will happen. There will be a snappy Civil Service investigation, done by people who are not disabled and have no experience of disabled living. The Minister will make minimal and inexpensive changes. The long-awaited additional costs allowance will not be forthcoming even though the Social Security Advisory Committee, agreeing with all disability organisations, recommended that the first step should be help with additional costs. I am putting down these markers for the Minister to answer tonight. If the review does not confirm my forecast I shall stand up and withdraw it.
I forecast that Government energy will be devoted not to helping all disabled people but to encouraging occupational and private schemes for the better off and the privileged. Will the Minister intervene now and deny that? If he does not, he should do so when he replies.
Contrary to what was said a few moments ago, we shall have a two-tier Britain. That will be the Government's epitaph. They have already achieved that in many areas. The Health Service will be the next immediate target, and a quick Bill on disability will finish off the process before the next election. The message to the people of Britain is: "Do not be disabled if you are also poor, at least while the present Government are in office."

Mrs. Marion Roe: From experience gained in my constituency through contact with many elderly people, there is no doubt that the 1980s have


witnessed a sustained and substantial improvement in the living standards of most pensioners. Sound economic policies and a realistic social policy have been the key to that important change. The essential safeguard for pensioners' living standards will always be a growing economy, able to pay for the services and benefits that the elderly need, coupled with the firm control of inflation to protect pensioners' savings. The policies of the past 10 years have helped pensioners on both counts, spreading greater prosperity to more pensioners than ever before.
Opposition Members are eloquent in their commitment to pensioners but as the history of the Labour Government shows—and as was confirmed last night in the speech on economic policy by the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock)—their policies could never deliver the sustained and vigorous growth needed to fulfil all their grandiose pledges. In short, there was plenty of commitment, but no cash.
The present Government, by contrast, are determined to help pensioners and have the policies to do so. Today, Britain spends £23 billion on caring for our elderly people, which is more than is spent on either defence or education. The revival of the British economy has enabled the Government to raise spending on all forms of benefits for the elderly by almost one quarter in real terms since 1979. Despite all the nonsense that we hear from members of the Labour party about Britain lagging behind our European partners, it is instructive to note that the United Kingdom spends 9·6 per cent. of its gross domestic product on care for the elderly—a proportion exceeded in the European community only by France and Denmark.
It is not sufficient to measure any Government's record on care for pensioners solely in terms of overall expenditure levels. The system of support for the elderly should also be fair, simple, and easy for claimants to understand. Above all, it should get the help to those who need it most. The social security system which we inherited from the Labour Government—and which had developed piecemeal over almost half a century—failed on all those counts. The reforms that came into effect last year dramatically simplified and modernised the social security system. The service to the public has improved and both the time taken to process claims and the error rate in assessment of entitlement are down.
It was inevitable and necessary that the reforms would create some net losers. The alternative was to perpetuate many of the manifest weaknesses and inconsistencies of the old system, at huge cost to the taxpayer and to the most needy. No meaningful reform that is affordable, fair and brings extra help to those who need it can make all claimants better off. However, transitional payments ensure that no one loses out in cash terms.
If one accepts the logic of the 1986 reforms, one must also acknowledge that as benefit levels rise transitional relief should disappear. Only a tiny proportion of pensioners—about one in 50—will see no increase in income support levels after yesterday's upratings, due to withdrawal of transitional support. Similarly, more than one in nine claimants in the other groups targeted for extra help by the 1986 reforms—the sick and disabled, lone parents, and couples with children—will receive increases. The vast majority will receive the full uprating. Following last year's reforms, the social security system is providing more help to those who need it most more quickly than ever before. Crucially, it is doing that far more efficiently

and with far fewer damaging consequences for the rest of the economy now that we have done away with benefit withdrawal rates of more than 100 per cent.
Current preoccupations with the first anniversary of implementation of the reforms should not obscure a remarkable development in the last few years—the way in which a growing number of pensioners rely only to a limited extent on the state for their pensions and benefits. Thanks to the spread of personal and occupational pensions, savings and home ownership, eight out of 10 pensioners receive income from savings or from their own pensions. Thanks to the revitalisation of the economy and to policies which have reduced inflation to less than one third of the peak that it reached under the Labour Government, pensioners' private incomes have risen well ahead of the growth in earnings. In the seven years to 1986, for example, pensioners' real incomes from savings and occupational pensions rose by a massive 60 per cent. Opposition Members find it difficult to grasp that what matters to pensioners is the growth of their total incomes, as was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, not merely benefits and the state pension but earnings and income from savings and private pensions. Typically, Labour Members think that all pensioners are totally dependent on the state. In reality, the majority have savings and private pensions, and most pensioners' standard of living is higher than ever.

Mrs. Beckett: Perhaps the hon. Lady did not entirely follow the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), when he pointed out that Labour, far from being unaware of the increased prosperity of many pensioners as a consequence of occupational schemes and of the state earnings-related pension scheme, actually brought those advantages into being. Under the present Government, they are being cut back so that in a few years pensioners' income growth will be substantially reduced.

Mrs. Roe: My experience is that pensioners feel that they are much better off than they have ever been, and that relates entirely to my point concerning savings and private pensions.
Since 1979 pensioners' total incomes have grown twice as fast as those of everyone else and five times faster than under the Labour Government. The modernised and reformed social security system brings more help to pensioners in greatest need. Last November's announcement of an extra £200 million income support will be particularly welcome to those elderly pensioners who never had a chance to participate in personal or occupational schemes or in SERPS.
The Labour party's extravagant and voluble compassion is nothing without policies to deliver sustained economic growth. The Government's record shows that a strong economy benefits everyone. The Labour party would be well advised to take that lesson to heart.

Mrs. Llin Golding: I bring to the attention of the House, and to the Secretary of State especially, the case of a 79-year-old woman who came to my advice bureau the other week. She entered the room very breathless and obviously upset, but with a determined expression on her face. She is one of the many working


women of north Staffordshire whose lungs have been damaged from breathing the industrial pollution which previously existed in the Potteries.
That lady, who had known her fair share of low pay and hardship, said to me in a quiet, firm voice, "I have come to tell you of the plight of many of the pensioners where I live. They will not come to see you because they no longer believe that the Government will listen to what they have to say, so I have come for them. Many of us received little or no increase in our pension this time. I myself received nothing. Because of my health, I cannot do much housework or my laundry—I have to pay someone to do that, and all the heavy work. Every week I carefully portion out my money into separate piles so that I do not get behind with any of my payments, and so that I do not owe anyone anything, which would be a dreadful thing to do, but I have been finding it very hard to manage and I cannot go on any longer. I used to have four pints of milk a week—now I have two. I used to have two loaves of bread a week—now I have one. For many months I have been unable to afford fresh fruit. Occasionally I buy a tin of fruit, such as apricots, which lasts me a number of days. I was looking forward to an increase in my pension, but I have had no additional money. Please could you go down there and tell them what it is like for many of the pensioners?"
I wrote to the manager of the local Department of Social Security office—a caring man who would help if he could—and received the following reply:
This lady was in receipt of Supplementary Pension prior to April 1988 and was receiving extra payment for her additional requirements in respect of heating and laundering costs. The Income Support scheme introduced in April 1988 made no provision for payments in respect of additional requirements and to prevent her becoming financially worse off under the new scheme a transitional addition payment was awarded to maintain the weekly allowance at the pre-April 1988 level. The effect of this is that … benefit will remain at this level…until the transitional payment has been eroded by subsequent increases in benefit rates.
The letter continued that the lady was
receiving her full legal entitlement by way of benefit
and
will qualify for the higher rate of pensioner premium when she attains age 80 in August 1989 which will further erode the transitional addition.
That lady will not receive any additional pension or any extra money until her pension reaches £51, but she will continue to have to pay for laundry, cleaning and for people to help her with all the heavy work that she is incapable of doing for herself. She asked me to put her case to Ministers in the belief that they would do what they could to help elderly people like her who suffer from ill health and those who are poor and unable to help themselves. I ask them—please do not fail this lady.

Mr. Robert McCrindle: The first half of the Opposition motion is a red herring. I shall turn my attention to that in an attempt to persuade the House that it is better to judge by actions rather than rhetoric.
However, although I cannot agree with the extravagant language of the second half of the Opposition motion, I shall show more sympathy with the underlying point that the Opposition seek to make. In the process I hope to take

up the challenge of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and prove that at least one Conservative Member is influenced considerably more by the plight of pensioner constituents than the threat of Government Whips. I say that with great respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown).
I always look to what a Government have actually done rather than paying undue attention to either the promises that they make for the future or criticising them for their present actions. Although it is correct that, during the last Labour Government, pensions were linked to earnings rather than prices, the hon. Member for Livingston conspicuously overlooked, when addressing this point—which he has addressed many times in this House and outside—the fact that the Labour Government were unable to deliver that promise for three out of the five years during which they were in office. On some occasions that was for reasons outside their control.
Before the Labour party lectures the Government for failing to continue the link with earnings, it should recognise that those of us who listen to what it plans to do —should it ever again be given responsibility for the government of the country—are inclined to reflect that the Labour Government were unable to keep their promise because of their own poor economic stewardship of the country. Rather than concentrate, as some Labour Members seem to do, on the past and what they would do in the future, they should recognise that, since 1979, the Government—who have made no secret of their wish to link pension increases to the level of prices—have carried out that undertaking to the letter.
I freely concede that some Conservative Members would have infinitely preferred it if, during this year when we have a substantial Budget surplus—and recognising that pensioner expenditure tends to be far less inflationary than the expenditure of younger earners, and less is spent on imported goods—we had safely increased the standards of living of pensioners and other beneficiaries. I am disappointed that the Government did not consider that to be an appropriate move.
Let us examine the system which is at the heart of today's debate. It would be extremely difficult for any hon. Member to say that we did not need the reforms represented in the 1988 legislation. It cannot have escaped the attention of hon. Members that, at that time, there were 30 different benefits, myriad conflicting rules and a complex administration which was vastly overdue for reform. I have been at the forefront of those who have welcomed this endeavour to improve the simplicity of the social security scheme and, in the process, to improve targeting so that those in greatest need receive most help.
I warmly welcomed the Government's aim to remove the poverty trap and encourage savings—to which Opposition Members have not paid enough attention—to foster positive attitudes towards employment and—I make no apology for this—to seek to move away from what has come to be known as the dependency culture. We should recognise that we should not continue to expect the state alone to prop us those who are able to earn additional incomes. At one time it may have been accepted as the norm, but that is clearly not so now.
The Government's aims are laudable. I regret that the results do not seem to have equalled the aspirations. I have already endorsed the welcome attempt to streamline the


benefit structure, and remove the pages of regulations, so that it is more easily understood. I have no hesitation in once again endorsing that attempt.
The Opposition spoil their case by exaggeration. However, it is true that a minority of pensioners who—being no longer entitled to the various additions on matters such as fuel, diet and incontinence, which they had and which no doubt contributed to the complication of the scheme—will find one year later, as the transitional period moves on, that they are in a worse position. That seems to be buying the simplification of the system which I support at too high a cost.
Targeting has undoubtedly benefited millions of people. Again, the Opposition spoilt their case by failing to concede that many gained as a result of last year's changes. It is a pity that a much-improved system for many people is reduced in the eyes of the population because there is a minority for whom it is not so.
Targeting is a splendid aim, which I continue to endorse, but it does not appear to be working. The people for whom it is not working are not those who, by most definitions, do not need it to work because they are among the less well off, no matter how that definition is stretched. The fact that there will be no increases or will be net reductions for some and modified increases for others because they are not entitled to the additions that they were able to expect before, or because of the end of the transition period, or because of both, shows that there is a corner of a broadly extremely successful review of social security to which the Government must turn their attention.
I concede that in most cases improvements have been made. I concede the point made by the Secretary of State that in the autumn there will be further advances for those whom I and other hon. Members have represented in previous debates, but there is no question but that a tiny element have not benefited from targeting, which was one of the principal objectives of the reforms. If people who are by no means well off are losing further benefit, targeting is not working across the board in the way that it is to a considerable extent for millions of beneficiaries, on whose behalf we understandably receive few representations.
There is no virtue in being consistent, but I hope that hon. Members will concede that, whatever else, I am at least consistent about the introduction of the requirement to pay 20 per cent. of the community charge. It may be desirable according to the views expressed by some of my hon. Friends, who say that it will involve the community and lead to understanding of what local government costs, but the other side of the ledger is that many who would have benefited as a result of the social security reforms will be tipped back on to the other side of the register. It may be too late to redress that merely by saying that we shall discontinue the 20 per cent. contribution, but this aspect must be taken into account by Ministers as they try to plug gaps.
I am reassured when Ministers remind me that they continue to monitor the position. To their eternal credit, they have monitored the system since 1 April 1988, and as a result of pressures brought by a number of hon. Members they have moved. The capital limit of £6,000 was increased to £8,000, and an announcement was made recently regarding 16 and 17-year-olds. I hope that the Minister will take this as a sincere representation on behalf of the people whom I represent, but the same could be said of people who live in Labour constituencies. When they

ask me, "Could you live on this net amount?" the only answer that I can give in all conscience is no. When they ask, "Am I one of the better off, because that would seem to be the reason for my not receiving as much as I did before?", again, I must answer no.
The position of beneficiaries has undoubtedly improved as a result of last year's changes, but thousands of people have been adversely affected. As I and other hon. Members were able to persuade the Minister to move on previous anomalies, I hope that we will persuade him that fresh thinking is required. It reflects no credit on an otherwise excellent range of social security reforms if, with inflation rising, people tell me "I am about to receive less in 1989 than I did in 1988." That cannot be right.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle), who has a reputation for independence and thinking out his own thoughts. His speech would repay careful study by Ministers, and I hope that he will receive answers to the questions that he posed.
It will come as no surprise to hon. Members who served on the Committee considering the Social Security Act 1986 that we are in this position today. I welcome the motion, which was ably presented by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), and will recommend that my colleagues vote for it.
The Fowler reviews set themselves an impossible task. It was impossible to simplify matters, which was laudable, and increase targeting, which was also an honourable objective, without incurring any additional cost. It is the main reason for the difficulties being experienced now by hon. Members' constituents.
The Secretary of State for Social Security and the Minister for Social Security are picking up the consequences of the fact that no detailed research was done prior to the Fowler reviews. We regularly have these debates, in which Conservative Members trade statistics and Opposition Members confront them with individual cases. It is a hopeless and frustrating process which gets us nowhere.
Some of the points made by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar were right. Perhaps Opposition Members do exaggerate the number of people experiencing financial difficulty, but that does not detract from the fact that some are indeed suffering very real difficulties. The debate should not proceed further without our placing on record the fact that the basic level of premiums and allowances under the new income support, family credit and housing benefit rules are far too low to allow a normal person a normal standard of living and to play his or her part in the community. It is substantiated by figures produced by the Policy Studies Institute, which show that 2 million pensioners are on income support, 2 million additional pensioners are on housing benefit and I million are estimated to be claiming benefits to which they are entitled. That clearly shows that the basic state pension cannot provide for basic needs, and that state of affairs must be addressed. Almost half of the 10 million pensioners are caught in the poverty trap, and the Government have an obligation to do something urgently about that.

Mr. Faye11: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the dilemma that faces any Government responsible for looking after pensioners who cannot otherwise look after themselves. He said that the basic pension is not adequate for 2 million pensioners on income support. That being so, what is the point in increasing the basic pension for rich people such as Lord Forte or the Prime Minister? Why not concentrate benefit on income support for the poorest pensioners? What is the point of spreading the jam thinly?

Mr. Kirkwood: I do not think the hon. Member understands the difference between the needs of those on contributory state pensions and those who enjoy occupational pensions. I will try to deal with that point later in my speech.
It is incumbent on Opposition Members to resist the temptation to be extravagant about numbers. I want to limit my remarks to the generation of pensioners with us now. They will come to the end of their natural lives between now and the end of the century. There has been a significant change in the rules for providing most income from occupational personal pensions and after the year 2000 when these pensions are the norm we will not have this problem of inadequate pension provision, but the problem will get worse before it gets better. There is no point in going on in abstract terms about total incomes or even average incomes of pensioners; we have to deal with the 2 million real people suffering real hardship now. That is the question the Government must address today.
As was said earlier, benefits have increased in real terms over the period of this Government by only something like 2 per cent., while earnings have increased by more than 20 per cent. I think that the figures used by the hon. Member for Livingston are right; they are the ones the Library supplied to me. I am seeking to make a contrast between the increase in pensions and benefits and the increase in earnings, however measured, and the Government cannot deny, whichever figures are used, that there has been a substantial difference between them.
I do not think it is possible to rely only on price protection between now and the end of the century. I understand why the Government should make that pledge, and it is a pledge worth having, but if one applied price protection to the July 1948 pension figure of £1·30, which was the original level at which the pension was set, it would only be something like £18·70 at today's prices for a single person, and the figure of £2·10 in July 1948 would now only be £30·59 for a married couple. Nobody would seek to justify that miserly level of increase over that period of time. Also, the Social Security Advisory Committee says time and again in its reports that the Government cannot simply, between now and the end of the century, hide behind the screen of price protection, because the standard of living of pensioners will inexorably fall further and further behind. That is an absolutely certain consequence of the Government restricting their policy for uprating benefits like pensions merely to price protection.
Transitional protection is presented as an example of generosity by the Government. To me, it is a device to conceal the full extent of the original 1986 cuts. This debate will occur year after year, and it does this House no credit to keep running away from the fundamental problems causing the difficulties. I have warned in previous debates that this day would dawn, and constituents I meet are frequently distraught, furious and feel cheated. What distresses me more than anything else,

however, is that, after going through these three respective angry phases, they invariably adopt a resigned, subdued attitude, as they realise they must submit themselves to the Gradgrind of continuing poverty for yet another year or even longer.
The poll tax rebate scheme, from a Scottish point of view, is in a state of total chaos. Nobody seems to be able to get answers to questions and all sorts of anomalies are appearing. This is a totally iniquitous, unjustified, damaging and complex new tax, loved by nobody north of the border. If English Tory Members think they have problems with transitional protection, just wait until the poll tax comes into force in England. In future in these debates words of criticism such as those of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar will seem like milk in balm compared with what they will then have to tell Ministers.
Problems are not only restricted to deprived urban areas, but occur in rural areas, too. A series of very disturbing representations was made to me this weekend in Hutton in Berwickshire, an otherwise idyllic part of the world. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) lives within a stone's throw of there. He will confirm what type of place it is. There were real problems there which caused me substantial concern. Another separate problem is the fact that there is a capital upper limit of £8,000 on the poll tax rebate, and not, as should be since it is a personal charge, a married couple's upper limit of £16,000. This is in my view an absolute disgrace.
I anticipate I will have the sympathy and support of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar for my final point. I am worried about the injustice experienced by those with small occupational pensions and other income. For reasons I have explained earlier, nearly half the 10 million pensioners in our country are potentially caught in a poverty trap. Any income over basic benefits is firstly taken into account in reducing their income support and then housing benefit. I have not done a calculation at the current rates, but under the benefit rates in place in November 1988 the first £30 of increased additional income could be reduced to £4 extra in certain circumstances, and I know of cases like that. It seems to me that, where the Inland Revenue has a special scheme enabling people to have the first £20 of income free from tax, it is quite wrong for the DSS to require it to be declared against income support and housing benefit. I put it to the Minister of State that the Department should do something urgently about that. Some earnings should be disregarded over and above those that already are. That would help remove some of the worst problems of the poverty trap faced by some of our worst-off pensioners.
The Government do have a problem. Provision for pensioners between now and the end of the century is inadequate and a matter of real concern, and I hope the Government will take carefully into account what is said in debates like this and try to do something to alleviate problems caused by the whole transitional mechanism before it hits us again in the same disastrous way next year.

Mr. Simon Burns: I do not know how familiar you are with contemporary rock music, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it may not have escaped your notice that a new rock song has been going around recently,


reviving a flagging theme, the red rose. Sadly, it will not get to No. 10. However, I have been struck by some of the lyrics in that song, saying
To help each other every day,
Remove injustice on the way".
Perhaps those lyrics are somewhat trite but, taken in isolation, no reasonable person can dispute the basic sentiments expressed. However, if these lyrics are a declaration of intent of any Labour party which might seek office at some distant time, and if they are taken in the context of today's motion by the official Opposition and the past record of the Labour Government of 1974 to 1979, they are meaningless. Good intentions, glib promises and pious rhetoric are just not good enough. It is a cruel deception to raise expectations which cannot be realised.
Labour's October 1974 election manifesto proudly proclaimed
Britain will win with Labour".
It proclaimed that Labour's policies would
protect the weak, the poor and the disabled, … and to maintain and improve their living standards.
The subsequent performance of that Labour Government failed dismally to live up to those high-falutin' declarations. Labour might have been the winners, but the losers were the pensioners, the less well off and the disabled in our society.
The oft-repeated claim that pensions increased each year by the movement of prices or earnings, whichever was the greater, is not sustainable. It was not honoured in 1976 or in 1978. If Labour had won the 1979 general election, its proposed policies would have meant that it would not have been honoured in 1979, either. Mrs. Barbara Castle dispensed with the historic calculation of earnings and replaced it with a system of forecasting in 1976. That deprived pensioners at a stroke—if I dare use that expression—of £500 million. At today's prices that is over £ 1 billion.
To add insult to injury, the method of forecasting was wrong in five of the seven years in which it was used to calculate the increase in the state pension. Even the Christmas bonus did not escape unscathed. It was not paid in 1975 and 1976. If Lord Barnett's memoirs are to be believed, it was only a kicking and screaming Lord Ennals and the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) who agreed to pay the Christmas bonus in 1977. Opposition Members should think twice before lecturing the Government on their uprating of benefits record. Their criticisms do not square with the facts.
The Government have not simply paid lip service to the need to help pensioners, the less well off and the disabled. They have encouraged the creation of wealth, with the result that this year the Government have been able to spend a record £51 billion on benefits. Approximately half of it is paid to the elderly. Pensioners have shared in the nation's prosperity. Their total incomes have grown twice as fast as those of everyone else and five times as fast as they grew under the last Labour Government.
Much play has been made of the claim that Britain's pensioners lag behind those of our European competitors. Again that myth cannot be sustained, because 9·6 per cent. of Britain's gross domestic product is spent on all programmes for the elderly, excluding medical care. Britain is third on the EEC chart. We are marginally behind Denmark, at 10·4 per cent., and France at 9·8 per cent.
The most powerful argument for what the Government have done for pensioners comes not from me but from Mrs. Dorothy Rhodes, the president of the National Federation of Retirement Pensions Associations. Recently she said:
I have spoken loudly in support of parity with Europe but during the past year … having spoken at length to those who receive Europensions and discovered that in many cases the actual cash received in relation to the cost of living is often lower than in the United Kingdom, I am revising my opinion, for in no way can our Federation ask for an equality that would disadvantage our own people.
There is a gulf between Conservative Members and the Opposition over pensions. The gulf is not about whether we care, or about trying to find the best solution and the best policies for providing help to the less well off. That does not divide us; everyone believes that the most effective help possible should be provided. What divides us is philosophy and the implementation of policy. Our policy during the last 10 years has benefited pensioners. We must create wealth so that the state can then spend the money that is generated on providing genuine help to the less well off and to pensioners whose only income is the state pension. It is crucial to target resources.
I return to child benefit which, deliberately, has not been increased but frozen. My right hon. Friend's decision was absolutely correct. My wife and I have a young daughter. It is nonsense for my wife to receive a tax-free sum of money each week towards the upkeep of our child. I much prefer that money, or the money that my wife would have received as an increase in child benefit, to be targeted on genuinely less well-off families through the income support system and the family credit system.
The less well off rightly deserve help and they a re getting it from the Government. The vast majority of people do not whine and complain. They accept the Government's philosophy. They accept also that the money is going to those who are in genuine need and who need to be helped.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) asked you, M r. Deputy Speaker, whether you enjoyed pop music. My eldest son writes pop music, although I brought him up on Bach and Beethoven. I much prefer Bach and Beethoven. The majority of my pensioners preferred the Labour Government to the present Conservative Government when it came to pensions.
The hon. Gentleman used the word "whine." That was obnoxious. The pensioners that I shall be speaking about are not whining. They are demanding a right that they worked for all their lives. In the community that I represent, many husbands have died and their widows have been left on their own. Their husbands earned poor money and died young as a result of the work that they did. Their widows have been left totally dependent on the state.
We have been challenged and asked to look at total incomes and targeting. I accept both challenges. I expect the hon. Member for Chelmsford to accept the challenge that I intend to put to him, based on the cases to which I shall refer and also on the cases mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding). I refer to a widow whose husband died younger than he ought to have done, because of the work in which he was engaged. I wrote to


the local Department of Social Security office. I do that as a matter of course until I find that DSS employees are victims of Government policy. I complained that that widow would not receive a penny increase in the financial year 1989–90. I received a letter from the DSS, together with the calculation. I ask the Secretary of State to listen to the simple terms of the calculation, which are that the total income on 11 April 1988 was £47·90 and that the total income on 10 April 1989 was £47·90.
Does the Secretary of State believe that a pensioner whose total income is £47·90 should be targeted? That pensioner, on £47·90, will have to soldier through the whole of the next financial year without a single penny increase in her pension. The whole of her pension increase has been clawed back because of the loss of the transitional addition. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Onger (Mr. McCrindle) did not say that he supported the cases that we are bringing to the Secretary of State's attention. This pensioner has lost the whole of the increase for 1989–90. Moreover, because she was in receipt of transitional addition amounting to £3·80 instead of just £2, she will lose the whole of her increase for 1990–91 as well.
With the odd exception, Conservative Members are endorsing a system under which a pensioner with a total income of £47–90 will spend this year and next year without a single increase in her pension to cover increases in the cost of living. If we do not include the mortgage interest rate and take inflation as 5·5 per cent., we still know that water charges are to increase by 10 per cent., and that, despite low inflation, the cost of living and the prices of essential goods still change. We know that rents will go up, and only a percentage of those rent increases will be covered by increases in housing benefit.
The pensioner I mentioned—I hope that the hon. Member for Chelmsford agrees that she should be targeted —is one of the 20 or 25 per cent. of pensioners who will have to depend on a static income to cover essential costs for the next two years. She is one of dozens of such pensioners in my constituency. Does the hon. Gentleman think that that is fair? Does he believe that the policy of targeting benefits should include that pensioner? In an intervention I asked the Secretary of State whether he thought that a pensioner on £47·90 a week should be targeted for support or whether that pensioner should go through the next two years without any increase in income to handle the additional costs of living. The Secretary of State did not reply.
I understand that by their very nature transitional additions must be phased out, but we should remember that the transitional additional allowances were dragged out of the Government as a result of pressure from both sides of the House more than 12 months ago when the impact of the new scheme was fully understood. I understand that among others the Prime Minister at her Finchley surgery suddenly realised the consequences of introducing the new system. Why is there not the same reaction this year? The same thing is happening. The same dozens of people who knocked on our surgery doors last year—I hope that they are knocking on the surgery door of the hon. Member for Chelmsford—are now saying that they did not realise that when they received the transitional addition the entire increase in their pensions would be clawed back in a single year and within a year.
The transitional additional allowance was not some act of great generosity but was a limitation of the loss of benefit as a result of the change in the system. We should watch out for the Orwellian double talk that the Government use when they talk about the transitional additional allowance as if it were a marvellous act of generosity when it was limiting the loss of benefit as a result of the so-called reform to a simpler system.
No one should have believed that a transitional addition equivalent to the entire increase in the pension should have been clawed back, as has happened. I hate to be in this position. I do not agree with the whole show and I do not agree with the system, but if we have to work the system and make a desperate plea on our hands and knees, I ask the Secretary of State now why he does not have an urgent rethink. He claims that he is monitoring, so here is the information he requires. Why does he not adjust the system at least by a much more gradual process by which the transitional additional allowance is clawed back? I hate the notion of presenting such a plea, but as the situation is desperate and the Government have a majority and can override our motion and continue to enforce the provisions, just as the Secretary of State had a rethink when he introduced the transitional allowances, will he not consider introducing in the next month or so some measure to provide a much slower and more gradual claw-back of the transitional addition? For example, he could say that no pensioner should lose more than one quarter of the increase in the next financial year.
If the Secretary of State is to introduce such a horrid system, let him at least do it with some amelioration, and introduce a scheme so that pensioners, such as the widow to whom I referred, do not have to soldier through the coming year and the year after without any increase in income. I hate the idea of having to ask the Secretary of State to do it, but will he reconsider urgently the concept of phasing out the transitional additional allowances over a much longer period? Instead of clawing back the entire £2·06 increase this year and virtually writing off next year's increase in the income of the average pensioner such as the one I described—and there are dozens of them in my constituency—if the Secretary of State were to ameliorate that situation it would be a modest crumb for us and we could tell our constituents that someone has listened, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme argued.
When the Minister replies, will he give his assessment of what it would cost not to claw back the full £2·06 from those in receipt of transitional addition in the next year if a pensioner were allowed to retain three quarters of the £2·06 increase? What will be the additional cost in a financial year to introduce a more gradual transition? Conservative Members repeatedly have defended the system by arguing that the Conservative party and not the Labour party has established a major economic success story which allows the Government to be generous to pensioners. But why can they not be generous to pensioners living on £47·90 a week? Why do they have to claw back the entire pension increase? We are not talking about millions of pounds. Perhaps we are talking about hundreds of thousands of pounds or whatever figure the Secretary of State or the Minister wishes to provide. If the Government's economic success story is so great, surely they can assist and support that group of pensioners.
I read with fascination the Secretary of State for Wales' speech last night to that tower of Tory power, the Tory


Reform Group. He condemned the "simplistic economic dogma" which does not solve the nation's problems. Nor does the simplistic social policy dogma that has emanated from some quarters of the Government and the Conservative party. But the Secretary of State is a member of the Cabinet which endorsed all the changes. I look forward with great interest to his speech on social policy in the near future, on behalf of the pensioners whom I represent. But we have to depend upon urgent pleas to the Secretary of State.
In the past few weeks, I have done what I did last year. I have sent a whole batch of cases, such as the case I have described, to the Prime Minister in the hope that some message of assistance and support to the pensioners may come from on high. I noticed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in presenting the Budget, spoke about the £14 billion he had to pay off the national debt. But there is another debt to be paid to a whole generation of elderly people who sacrificed their efforts, their health and their lives, and who are entitled not to request, to beg or to whine but to demand the right to a fair and just pension system.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is very little time and I hope that hon. Members will make brief speeches.

Mr. John Butterfill: I wish to raise the subject of the uprating of retirement pensions, and especially the uprating that took place last November. I want to call upon my hon. Friend the Minister to consider paying a bonus of an extra week's pension for Britain's 8 million pensioners. I believe that this is urgently required to make up for what I consider to be a sleight of hand or conjuring trick which occurred last November. At that time pensioners received 1·8 per cent. less than the law required that they should receive.…I do not think that Parliament should allow the pensioners to be double-crossed in the way that they have been over the latest pensions uprating…the pensioners' own money was hi-jacked by the Government to pay their Christmas bonuses at Christmas…many of us are seriously disturbed by the fact that a firm pledge, about which we have frequently publicly and proudly boasted, is apparently not to be honoured." [Official Report, 12 March 1979; Vol. 964, c. 231–35.]
Those are harsh words, but they are not my words and they are not about this Government. Those are the words of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and the words of Mr. George Rodgers, the former Labour Member for Chorley, almost exactly 10 years ago, speaking about the last Labour Government. Whatever we may have heard from the Opposition about the good intentions of the Labour party, we can hear from their own lips what the performance was when they were last in power. For the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) to say that had their formula remained in place there would have been an increase of £17-plus a week for pensioners is sheer deception, as is manifest in the words of his Back-Bench colleagues that I have just quoted. The difficulty about the speech of the hon. Member for Livingston was that it was almost entirely anecdotal.
Of course there are people who are suffering under the arrangements that have come into force recently. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) was right to point out that there are anomalies that need to be redressed. My right hon. Friend has said that he will look at these problems and keep the matter

under continuous review. Where the hon. Member for Livingston was wrong was in not giving any account of the enormous improvements that have been made by this Government, or of the enormous improvement in the welfare of pensioners that has taken place over the past few years. We are not talking just about the basic pension; the improvements in income support and in housing benefit have to be taken into account.
My hon. Friends have already spoken about the total proportion of GDP that we in this country, compared with other European countries, spend on benefits. We are third in the European league. It is right that that 'should be pointed out, but it is right also to point out that the changes that we have made have not been made without extra money. An extra £200 million is being spent on income support as from October. In particular, the older and disabled pensioners will benefit by an extra £2·50 a week.
Equally, the Opposition have taken no account of the exceptionally cold weather payments. Recently they criticised the basis on which those payments were made. But at least the payments were introduced by this Government; they did not exist when the last Labour Government were in power. The Labour Government certainly did not think of such payments. Nor have the Opposition paid any tribute to the very generous improvements in the tax allowances for pensioners that were introduced in the last Budget. The age allowance was increased very substantially, the age threshold was reduced, and the earnings rule was abolished. All of those things are very good news for pensioners.
Instead, Opposition Members harp on about poverty. They produce statistics to show that an ever-increasing number of people in this country are living in poverty. It is worth looking at the basis of those claims. They tend to operate on one of two bases: either earnings related to average earnings, or earnings related to the thresholds for income support. Of course, the difficulty with that is that every time we improve the level of social security the number of people allegedly in poverty goes up. It is a no-win situation for the Government. But those are precisely the sort of statistics that the Opposition like to deal in.
We have to look at the fact that we are now spending £51 billion on the social security budget, which is a real increase of 33 per cent. since the last Labour Government were in power. We have to look also at the increases that we have made in income support and family credit. The amount being paid in income support is £421 million more than was paid in supplementary benefit; and £400 million is being paid in family credit against £200 million under the old family income supplement. Those are real increases that are benefiting the majority of people.
The great problem in this country is that, despite all the money that is being spent, we still have people who are genuinely poor. We must ask ourselves why it should be so. When we are spending £51 billion—nearly £1,000 a year for every man, woman and child in the country—why are there still poor people? If the bottom 10 per cent. of the population were regarded as the really needy, that would give them £10,000 a year each. Why do we have poor people? It is because benefit is very poorly targeted. So long as we have universal benefits, such as child benefit —this was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns)—there will be a problem. Of course, child benefit did not benefit the genuinely poor


because it was clawed back from their other benefits; it benefited only the middle classes. So long as we continue with nonsenses like that we will never redress poverty in this country.

Mr. Robin Cook: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could clarify a point. He has just said that so long as we continue with nonsenses like universal benefits we will never resolve the problem of poverty. Is he including in "universal benefits" the state pension?

Mr. Butterfill: I include all benefits in my assessment of the way in which we should treat people. I am not suggesting, for example, that we should get rid of the state pension, but I am saying that we need very much more accurate targeting of benefits if we are to eliminate poverty.

Mrs. Rosie Barnes: The Government have a very shabby record in their treatement of the poor, the disabled and the under-privileged, particularly those who are dependent on benefits, and even more particularly the elderly. It is clear that the Government believe that by reducing the value of benefits, by failing to uprate benefits in line with inflation, they will produce a net result of a reduction in the dependency culture and will compel people back into productive economic employment. This is just not the case. People are not dependent on benefit of their own wish; the vast majority wish to be employed, and wish to have a dignified standard of living that they have earned and provided for themselves. If they are in need of a pension, if they are in need of benefit, it is not something that they have willed upon themselves.
It is a disgrace that, at a time when inflation is running at nearly 8 per cent, we see increases in benefit of only 5·9 per cent. There is nothing complicated about the net effect of that: the poor will become poorer—straight, unavoidable fact. There is no whining about it, no harping on about it; I am simply reporting what many of my constituents have told me, and what the constituents of all hon. Members will be telling them over the coming weeks. Whatever extravagant claims the Government may make, nothing can explain the policy of lowering the income of those people who are dependent on benefits.
That is particularly exacerbated by the combined system of taxation and benefit—or rather the fact that those are not combined. The two have to be looked at together because, together, they exacerbate the poverty trap. They frequently and continually inhibit people from taking low-paid or part-time work because, by doing so, those people would be worse off than they are when on benefit. Most people do not have a fair choice—the combined effect of the tax and social security system ensures that they stay at the bottom of the pile.
My greatest criticism of the Government is of their meanness of spirit. Yes, the system is simpler than it was before—and that is to be welcomed—but it is also totally inadequate. The Government had an invaluable opportunity to revise the system, to simplify it, and to make sure that no one was worse off. Such opportunities come very rarely. There was an opportunity last year, and the

Government passed it over. Yes, many people are worse off. We are talking about a minority, but it is a minority of people who are suffering through no fault of their own.
We are looking not at a decision that was made against the backcloth of a shortage of revenue, but at one that was made against the backcloth of a surplus of £15 billion. Despite the growing shadow of inflation, which endangers our economic recovery, we have seen consistently strong economic growth. One of the advantages of a strong, successful economy is that it enables a caring, socially responsible Government to share the fruits of success with those members of society who have not been able to benefit directly—those who are not earning high wages, those who are not getting increased revenue from shareholdings. If the Government seriously want to encourage everyone to participate in our economic success, they should understand that they must give everyone, including the needy and the poor, a share of that success. They should never have considered cutting the real value of social security benefits.
The uprating of pensions and other benefits, including child benefit, should be automatic. The Government have shunted child benefit to one side and it has been gradually eroded, presumably in order to dismantle the universality of that benefit.
The Government should go further and examine ways to make benefits more buoyant. They should ensure that the poor benefit from our economic success by giving an additional increase in benefits which is related to the success of the economy. It is a measure of the Government that, today, we are debating real cuts in benefit. We are witnessing the poor becoming poorer when the Chancellor does not know how to spend the reserves that he has.
Pensioners have a particular right to be angry. The Government happily preside over a system of supposedly contributory benefits. The system educates people to believe that they are paying into a fund on which they will be able to draw, by right and with dignity, in later life. In reality, however, the Government treat pensions as though they were a handout rather than money which is given back to those who have paid in over the years. Pensioners are only asking for what is theirs by right and for what they have paid. They are right to argue that the Government are wrong to cut the value of their pensions. This is an argument of principle that goes far beyond the fact that many pensioners are living in great poverty today. If the Government have decided that they do not accept the contributory principle, they should have the courage to say so rather than to act as the arbiters and controllers of what is given back to those who have paid over the years.
The growing number of dependent elderly poses a challenge to and a great problem for the future reduced working-age population. To try to wriggle out of social obligations, to try to reduce the cost of supporting the elderly by cutting pensions and by trying to push the elderly into the private health sector by subsidising private health insurance amounts to a cowardly approach to a problem that must be faced honestly and openly.
It is right to continue the tax relief on personal private pensions to enable many people to enjoy a better standard of living in later life. Ultimately, if the majority of our elderly are covered by such schemes, it may be right to reduce the extra tax relief given to pensioners through the age allowance. For the majority of today's pensioners, however, the state pension is their basic income. It is clear to anyone who meets and talks to pensioners regularly that


their basic pension is not high enough. Those with small occupational pensions often suffer even more deprivation because they are denied access to the benefits that may be claimed by those with no additional pension.
We must consider seriously the provision for poor pensioners. To achieve a better allocation of resources is not just a question of giving more money. We must change the structure to make claiming a more straightforward and simplified matter, with less stigma attached to it. The answer must lie in the integration of the tax and benefit systems. Only by aggregating everyone's earnings and benefit entitlement can a sensitive assessment of net tax burden or net benefit entitlement be made. An integrated system is perfectly feasible within a computerised Inland Revenue. That would eliminate the "churning" of revenue that results in the Government giving with one hand and taking back with the other. For the population as a whole it would ensure that people did not become worse off by taking on work and subsequently losing benefit. Within such a system provision for poor pensioners should be a priority.

Mr. Butterfill: The system that the hon. Lady has adumbrated has some merit. Would it involve withdrawing universal benefit such as child benefit?

Mrs. Barnes: No. My party strongly defends child benefit. It was, in part, a tax concession that was taken away from the main earner in the family and given to the caring parent, usually the mother. Time does not permit me to take that argument further this evening.
Other measures that we advocate, particularly for the elderly, include the miserly £10 bonus at Christmas. We believe that a double pension should be given the week before Christmas. We should also seriously consider abolishing the standing charges on gas, electricity and telephones, which hit the elderly particularly hard.
The issue today is not how much the system costs but how effective it is. Does it fairly do the job it was set up to do? No one believes that any increase below the level of inflation will do anything other than make people poorer. There has been some indictment today of the use of anecdotes, but those who have made such criticisms should remember that anecdotes represent people who are suffering and that they are symptomatic of some of the failings of the system. They highlight the gaps which we must plug.
On Friday night, a constituent, a single parent with three children, came to me. She is a diabetic and, because her eldest child has just turned 16, her income has fallen from £72·96 a week to £46·31. Her 16-year-old son has not yet got a job. Her doctor sent a letter to tell me that she may be hospitalised because her diabetes is getting out of control as she is eating badly. How can I explain to my constituent just how fair and compassionate the Government are? Such anecdotes represent people. They may represent the minority, but they are suffering, and they deserve the attention and a share of the resources of this country.

Mr. Tony Favell: I shall confine my remarks to a few basic truths about the basic pension. A country is judged on the way in which it treats its pensioners and that is right, because a decent society should be judged on how it treats its elderly citizens.
There are widely held misconceptions about the basic pension. There is a belief held by the young, including the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes), that most pensioners have to live on the basic pension. But they do not. Opposition parties complain about the rate of increase in the basic pension and ask whether it is reasonable to expect couples to live on £65·80 a week. The answer is that none do because the basic income support level is above the basic pension. Therefore, any couple on basic pension are entitled to income support and if they are householders they are also entitled to housing benefit.
Opposition Members have complained that one fifth of our elderly population are on income support or receive housing benefit, but that means that four fifths of our pensioners also have occupational pensions or savings, or both. What on earth is the point of raising the basic pension to the level advocated by the Opposition parties? As I said earlier in an intervention, what is the point of spreading the jam so thinly that no one benefits? There are many pensioners who are very rich and what is the point of giving extra help to them? As I said earlier, what is the point of benefiting Lord Forte or the Prime Minister? It is much more sensible to target extra help to those in real need.

Mr. Allen McKay: rose——

Mr. Favell: No, I shall not give way. With a falling working population and the elderly thankfully living longer, to increase the basic pension would have no purpose and would simply be a waste of money.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Our motion refers to the fall in income that has been experienced under the Conservatives by vulnerable groups, including many pensioners, and I remind the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) that many pensioners do not claim the means-tested benefits to which they might be entitled because they are proud and resent the fact that those benefits are means tested. They are among the most vulnerable and needy and they most lose out and resent being deprived of that basic pension increase which is still the most important part of the income of the vast majority of pensioners.
My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) admirably exposed the Government's lamentable record on pensions, and it was plain again, as in the past, that neither the Secretary of State nor his Back Benchers had much in the way of any accurate response to make to refute the points that my hon. Friend made. They had even less to say about the case made on behalf of those whose standard of living not only dropped last year but will drop again this year—those for whom the Prime Minister's recent sweeping assertion that everyone is better off under Conservative rule rang hollow.
My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston pointed out that every one of those individuals benefiting from or receiving transitional protection, whose difficulties we are highlighting in this debate, and many of whose case histories have been given by my hon. Friends and others, are the people who were untruthfully described by the Prime Minister and other Ministers last year as being no worse off after last year's benefit cuts—some of the 88 per cent. about whom that outrageous claim was made.
Indeed, Ministers defended the claim that they were no worse off by saying that they were no worse off because they faced no cash losses. By definition, the Secretary of State either chose not to, or could not, answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston. By definition, every one of those vulnerable individuals whose cases have been highlighted in this debate were among those whom the Prime Minister said were no worse off, though their income rose at most by £1·30 and their bills alone, including in most cases their rate and water rate bills, rose by far more. They have since faced the rise in gas and electricity prices without a penny more. That was last year. This year, 600,000 of them again get not a penny more, while another 500,000 or so will get some increase, but not the full increase needed to meet price rises in November and which are already out of date.
The Government's response to the plight of those people is to talk about something else. The Government are hoping that if they shut their eyes tightly enough and for long enough they will all go away, and that if the Government shout loudly enough and long enough, mouthing one set of meaningless or manipulated figures after another, either those people will not be heard or they will not be believed. But Opposition Members are determined that they will be heard because they have a right to be heard.
It is bad enough that we have a Government who are so uncaring and deceitful that they are prepared to cut the standard of living of the most vulnerable people in the country and call it targeting on those in the greatest need. They do not even have the guts to admit that that is what they have done. To the injury of increased struggle they add the insult of pretending that it is not happening.
The Conservative case is that they are doing more than any previous Government. It is certainly true that the Conservatives have had the opportunity. No Government in history have had a windfall gain such as that of North sea oil—revenues secured for them by the Labour Government whom they succeeded, who did not believe in throwing away the nation's assets—[Interruption.] It is all very well for Conservative Members to laugh. If the policies of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) had been pursued by the last Labour Government there would have been no North sea oil revenues for them to throw away. But that opportunity, like those assets, has been squandered.
Indeed, almost every penny of the increased expenditure of which the Secretary of State spoke—spending in real terms of which the Government boast —is due not to more generous benefits but to increased numbers forced to draw them. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) pointed out, there are more people unemployed, more people reaching retirement, more living longer in retirement and showing increased frailty and more with some disability who can no longer find work under Conservative rule. Only three times in 10 years have the Conservatives given a real increase in benefits over and above that required by inflation-proofing, and even those amounts were usually tiny.
If the Conservatives have been so generous, how did it happen that 600,000 people did not get a penny more this year for the second year running, with no cost of living

increase? Whose fault was it that there was no increase in child benefit for 12 million children and no increase of any kind for the upkeep of nearly 8 million of them? What wicked fairy brought about the reduction in case load that meant that I million people lost all help with their rent and rates?
We have had a further indication today of the generosity of the Government. I refer to a report in today's Glasgow Times about the handling of deductions from the income support of people who are refusing to pay the poll tax deductions to which the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) referred. A memo sent to all DSS offices in Scotland has been leaked to the Glasgow Times. It states:
In deciding whether a deduction can be made"—
for the poll tax—
the adjudication officer will ensure that there is sufficient Income Support to allow for the deduction to be made in full whilst leaving 10p in payment to the claimant.
That is 10p a week, and of course it must be left in payment to the claimant because that is the law. That is the generosity of the Government.
I understand that over the weekend the Minister of State was reported as saying that when a new system of benefits such as this was introduced it was inevitable that there would be losers. That was obviously in the Whips' Office briefing because several Conservative Members have referred to it.
The Minister was talking nonsense. We know how the Prime Minister fancies that she is the Queen. Is it now the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State who considers herself or himself to be Moses? Was it divine revelation written on tablets of stone that there were bound to be losers, or were those just the instructions handed down by No. 10 and the Treasury?
There are bound to be losers because that has been decided by the Government. They chose it. It is not the product of some natural or divine law. It is certainly not divine law that the losers should be found among the elderly, the poor, the halt and the lame. That sounds much more like the woman who thought that the only thing that mattered about the Good Samaritan was that he had money in his pocket, not that he was prepared to spend it on the unfortunate. The victim was lucky that the Prime Minister did not pass by, or he would have got a brisk lecture on the value of standing on his own two feet.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston pointed out, the Department has been throwing away sources of income that could have been used to make sure that there did not have to be losers. He referred to the supplement that every Government have made for 40 years, the supplement from tax revenues to make sure that decent pensions could be paid to the elderly and the disabled.
In 1980–81, £4·5 billion came from tax revenues for that purpose, but this coming year there will not be a penny, not because it is divine or natural or any kind of law other than that made by the Government, but because this Administration decided that it was money that the pensioners and the disabled did not need. In their view, they were already too well off.
The Government's attitude to the erosion of transitional protection is, in some ways, the most puzzling of all. Why are the Government prepared to defend a cut in the standard of living of the elderly, the sick and the


least well-off families, a standard of living that even the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) described as buying simplification at too great a cost?
A parliamentary answer that I received suggested that the full uprating of income support for which the motion calls could have been provided for about £70 million. In October, as the Government amendment to the motion records, they are spending three times as much to save the Chancellor's face and divert attention away from his long-term plans to means-test benefits such as child benefit, the Christmas bonus and—as the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) was good enough to confirm—even the basic state pension. If the Government can find £200 million to help out the Chancellor, the money could have been found to uprate those benefits where transitional protection was being paid when the overall uprating was calculated.
The Government amendment proudly asserts the huge success of their economic policies. In other words, the Government are not saying that they could not have found the extra money. Why is it so important for them to push through these cuts, comparatively minor by the Government's standards and doubly difficult to defend? What principle is at stake?
Since the changes of April last year the Government have tried to insist that they have made no real or significant cuts. Every example to the contrary has been decried and denied. In particular, they have insisted that if any problems were inadvertently created, it was all in the cause of targeting the help still given on those in the greatest need.
What could more surely reveal the phoneyness and dishonesty of that case than the existence alongside a growing band of new claimants of a group, however small or fast diminishing, of people whose problems, sickness or distress were identical in all major respects but who got much more money because their benefit level under the old system was permanently protected?
When the woeful inadequacy of many new benefit levels becomes apparent by comparing people's needs with their resources, what will more dramatically blow the gaff on the Government's case than a simple straightforward comparison between what is paid now and what used to be paid? We can all write the script. Mrs A gets the old level of benefit but under the new scheme Mrs. B, if she becomes ill or is injured, will receive less money every week. What could more starkly prove what we know to be the truth, which is that the Government believe that 1 million of our most vulnerable people were too well off last April? Although the Government were prepared to see the standard of living of those people fall, they are a bit squeamish about admitting it. People might even have remembered that two weeks earlier the same Government had lavished tax cuts on the wealthy.

Mr. Butterfill: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Beckett: No, I do not have time. I would have given way if the hon. Gentleman had asked me earlier.
The debate is taking place not because justice and fair treatment for the 1 million people who have not received a full uprating or any at all cannot be afforded, but because that would expose the sham and the meanness of Government policy. The hardship of those people is the price of concealment.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I am delighted to know that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) listens to my weekend broadcasts. I do not resile for a moment from saying that I approached the debate with some relish, although the relish is slightly diminished because in my winding-up speech I have to deal with the statistical argument between the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. l utterly refute the Opposition accusation that my right hon. Friend intended to mislead the House. The statistics quoted by the hon. Member for Livingston and those quoted by my right hon. Friend are simply different statistics. Both sets of statistics are accurate and acceptable in their own way, and the House can judge which set is more relevant to the debate. Having looked at both sets of statistics, I have no doubt where the right answer lies.
The hon. Member for Livingston obtained his figures from the Library and they relate to the basic state pension calculated as a proportion of male earnings. My right hon. Friend's figures were from the 1986 family expenditure survey and compare total state benefits with average manual earnings. The difference in the two sets of figures is easily explained. It is not the basic state pension that matters to pensioners, but their total income—in this case from state benefits. Those may include a whole range of benefits apart from the basic state pension. The important point about the statistics is that they contain figures about actual people with actual incomes. The figures supplied by the Library and quoted by the hon. Gentleman describe the pensioner equivalent of that well-known figure the person with 2·3 children. Such figures are an abstraction rather than a representation of the reality of what is happening.
Now that the hon. Member for Livingston has listened to my explanation and has reconsidered the matter, I hope that he will share my preference for the figures quoted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read what I have said. If he cares to write to me about the matter, I shall be perfectly happy to conduct the argument by correspondence. I am certain that we have the right answer.
The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) accused the Government of abysmal failure in running the social security system. Let us consider what has happened to total benefits under the Government. In 1988–89 the total benefit figure was calculated at £45·2 billion—a real increase of £10·9 billion since 1978–79. That increase was due to many factors, such as a real terms increase in the average amount paid accounting for about £3·9 billion, and increased numbers of beneficiaries accounting for about £7 billion, of which £2·2 billion was accounted for by extra unemployment. Over the same period, social security spending rose from 25·6 per cent. to 31 per cent. of public expenditure. That is what the right hon. Gentleman describes as abysmal failure. In fact, it shows a successful economy generating money for extra expenditure on people who need help.
The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South takes a special interest in the disabled and their entitlement to benefit. He knows as well as I do that in the past 10 years there has been a 90 per cent. increase in benefits for disabled people, a real terms increase of no less than £3·5 billion. The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that £3


billion of that was due to increased take-up and that about £500 million was due to the increased level of benefits. The numbers of disabled people did not suddenly multiply when we came to office. Those people were there when the Labour Government were in office but they were not getting benefits then. They are getting benefits now, and that must surely be right.

Mr. Ashley: The Minister now admits that the Government are wrong to claim that all the money has gone to increase the individual incomes of disabled people because the larger numbers of disabled people mean that it is a small increase for individual disabled people.

Mr. Scott: The Government have never made any such assertion—certainly not while I have been in my present post, and none of my predecessors has done so. We have never said that the figures were anything other than those that I have just given—and those figures can not only be defended but applauded.
With his tongue firmly in his cheek the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South asked me to prophesy our reaction to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys reports and the nature of the review that we intend to conduct when we finally receive those reports. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to be patient and to await the arrival of the remaining four reports. I do not think that he could expect any other answer.
Without unduly delaying any action that might flow from our consideration of those reports, we shall want to find some way in which disabled organisations and perhaps hon. Members can make their views known as to the most appropriate way forward. We shall then take those views into account before making up our mind.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) raised a specific case, and was not the only hon. Member to do so. I make it a general rule not to reply to questions about individual cases across the Floor of the House because it is difficult to establish the basic facts, but I will look at the case that the hon. Lady put forward. I can tell her that the package for poorer pensioners introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will provide a second uprating this year for poorer pensioners and that the October uprating will not erode transitional protection. We have made special arrangements to make sure of that. I hope that the hon. Lady will draw that to the attention of her constituent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) endorsed the simplicity of the new system but seemed to argue that we should return to the complexities of the additional requirements which existed under the supplementary benefits system. I remind him and the House that the additional requirements were complex and needed a great deal of intrusive questioning to ascertain the amount to which people were entitled. We got rid of those complexities and replaced them with a severe disablement premium. With Government money we established the independent living fund so that the needs of people with exceptional requirements could be met, thus preventing such people from being institutionalised rather than supported in the community. Those people were helped in a compassionate and flexible manner and the independent living fund has turned out to be a considerable success.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Scott: I have much regard for the hon. Gentleman but I have two minutes in which to complete the winding-up speech. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not give way.
When I saw the Opposition motion, I could hardly believe my eyes. It is now 12 months since the introduction of the reforms——

Mr. Rowlands: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Scott: No. I shall read carefully what the hon. Gentleman has said and I shall write to him because the argument is complex.
When I first saw the Opposition motion, I could hardly believe my eyes. Twelve months after the introduction of the reforms and all the predictions of dire consequences flowing from them, the Opposition have laboured mightily and brought forth a mouse. At the weekend I heard a commentator say that in preparing to mount their attack on the Government the Labour Opposition had decided to concentrate their forces on a broad front—not a military tactic with which I am familiar—but it may be that they have had second thoughts on that and decided to concentrate on a much narrower target today. Perhaps this is because, as successive commentators have recognised and as most hon. Members recognise, they know that when we get away from the minority of individual hard cases—I accept that hard cases exist—the overwhelming success of our reforms is manifest.
The motion concentrates on two points—the way in which pensions are calculated, and the transitional protection. With regard to the first, the Opposition make two points—first, about the date of the calculation and, secondly, about whether it should be linked to earnings and prices. We have given a commitment to link it to prices and we have fulfilled that obligation. The Labour party had a variety of devices linking it to earnings or moving to the forecasting method.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) very effectively explained in his opening remarks the criticisms that were levelled against the Labour Government at the time. Further on in that debate the hon. Member then for Coventry, South-West—now the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise)—made it clear why that change had been made when she said:
In April 1976, when the changed basis of calculation was announced, it was clear that the change was brought into being because it was advantageous to the Government at that stage and saved £500 million compared with what would have been required for that pension uprating to keep in line with the historic costs of inflation."—[Official Report, 12 March 1979; vol. 964, c. 236.]
That was the record of the Labour Government.
We have given pledges and we have honoured them, and we shall continue to do so. We have honoured our commitment to monitor these reforms and to make changes where necessary in housing benefit and with regard to poorer pensioners, widows, 16 and 17-year-olds and hostels, and we shall continue to do so. The fundamental structure, however, is right and I commend the Government amendment to the House.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 308.

Divlslon No. 153]
[7.02 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Fyfe, Maria


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Galbraith, Sam


Allen, Graham
Galloway, George


Alton, David
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Anderson, Donald
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Armstrong, Hilary
George, Bruce


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Ashton, Joe
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Gordon, Mildred


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Gould, Bryan


Barron, Kevin
Graham, Thomas


Battle, John
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Beckett, Margaret
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Beggs, Roy
Grocott, Bruce


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Harman, Ms Harriet


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bermingham, Gerald
Haynes, Frank


Bidwell, Sydney
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Blair, Tony
Heffer, Eric S.


Blunkett, David
Henderson, Doug


Boateng, Paul
Hinchliffe, David


Bradley, Keith
Holland, Stuart


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Home Robertson, John


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Howells, Geraint


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Buchan, Norman
Hoyle, Doug


Buckley, George J.
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Callaghan, Jim
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Illsley, Eric


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Ingram, Adam


Cartwright, John
Janner, Greville


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Clay, Bob
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Clelland, David
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Kennedy, Cnarles


Cohen, Harry
Kilfedder, James


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Corbett, Robin
Kirkwood, Archy


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lambie, David


Cousins, Jim
Lamond, James


Cox, Tom
Leadbitter, Ted


Crowther, Stan
Leighton, Ron


Cryer, Bob
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lewis, Terry


Cunningham, Dr John
Litherland, Robert


Dalyell, Tam
Livsey, Richard


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Loyden, Eddie


Dewar, Donald
McAllion, John


Dixon, Don
McAvoy, Thomas


Dobson, Frank
Macdonald, Calum A.


Doran, Frank
McFall, John


Douglas, Dick
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Duffy, A. E. P.
McKelvey, William


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McLeish, Henry


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Maclennan, Robert


Eadie, Alexander
McWilliam, John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Madden, Max


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Marek, Dr John


Fatchett, Derek
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Faulds, Andrew
Marshall, Jim (Lelcester S)


Fearn, Ronald
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Martlew, Eric


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Maxton, John


Flannery, Martin
Meacher, Michael


Flynn, Paul
Meale, Alan


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Foster, Derek
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Foulkes, George
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Fraser, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis





Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Sillars, Jim


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Skinner, Dennis


Mullin, Chris
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Murphy, Paul
Smith, C. (Islton &amp; F'bury)


Nellist, Dave
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


O'Brien, William
Snape, Peter


O'Neill, Martin
Soley, Clive


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Steinberg, Gerry


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Stott, Roger


Parry, Robert
Strang, Gavin


Patchett, Terry
Straw, Jack


Pendry, Tom
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pike, Peter L.
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Turner, Dennis


Prescott, John
Vaz, Keith


Primarolo, Dawn
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wall, Pat


Radice, Giles
Wallace, James


Randall, Stuart
Walley, Joan


Redmond, Martin
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Wareing, Robert N.


Robertson, George
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Robinson, Geoffrey
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Rogers, Allan
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Rooker, Jeff
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wilson, Brian


Rowlands, Ted
Winnick, David


Ruddock, Joan
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Salmond, Alex
Worthington, Tony


Sedgemore, Brian
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Sheerman, Barry



Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. Nigel Griffiths and Mr. Ken Eastham.


Short, Clare





NOES


Adley, Robert
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Aitken, Jonathan
Buck, Sir Antony


Alexander, Richard
Burns, Simon


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Burt, Alistair


Allason, Rupert
Butcher, John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Butterfill, John


Amess, David
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Amos, Alan
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arbuthnot, James
Carrington, Matthew


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Ashby, David
Chapman, Sydney


Aspinwall, Jack
Chope, Christopher


Atkins, Robert
Churchill, Mr


Atkinson, David
Clark, Hon Aian (Plym'th S'n)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Baldry, Tony
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Colvin, Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Conway, Derek


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bellingham, Henry
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bendall, Vivian
Cope, Rt Hon John


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Couchman, James


Bevan, David Gilroy
Cran, James


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Critchley, Julian


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Body, Sir Richard
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Day, Stephen


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dicks, Terry


Boswell, Tim
Dorrell, Stephen


Bottomley, Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Jamess


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Dover, Den


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dunn, Bob


Bowis, John
Durant, Tony


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Eggar, Tim


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Emery, Sir Peter


Brazier, Julian
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Bright, Graham
Evennett, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Fallon, Michael


Browne, John (Winchester)
Favell, Tony


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Fenner, Dame Peggy






Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Fishburn, John Dudley
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Fookes, Dame Janet
Key, Robert


Forman, Nigel
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Knapman, Roger


Fox, Sir Marcus
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Franks, Cecil
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Freeman, Roger
Knox, David


French, Douglas
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fry, Peter
Lang, Ian


Gale, Roger
Latham, Michael


Gardiner, George
Lawrence, Ivan


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Gill, Christopher
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Glyn, Dr Alan
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Lilley, Peter


Goodlad, Alastair
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Lord, Michael


Gorst, John
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Gow, Ian
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
McCrindle, Robert


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Gregory, Conal
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Maclean, David


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Grist, Ian
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Ground, Patrick
Major, Rt Hon John


Grylls, Michael
Malins, Humfrey


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mans, Keith


Hague, William
Maples, John


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mates, Michael


Hanley, Jeremy
Maude, Hon Francis


Hannam, John
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Harris, David
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hawkins, Christopher
Miller, Sir Hal


Hayes, Jerry
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Mitchell, Sir David


Hayward, Robert
Moate, Roger


Heddle, John
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hill, James
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Morrison, Sir Charles


Howard, Michael
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Moss, Malcolm


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Neale, Gerrard


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Needham, Richard


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Neubert, Michael


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Irvine, Michael
Norris, Steve


Irving, Charles
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Jack, Michael
Oppenheim, Phillip


Janman, Tim
Paice, James


Jessel, Toby
Patnick, Irvine


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Patten, Chris (Bath)





Patten, John (Oxford W)
Summerson, Hugo


Pawsey, James
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Portillo, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Powell, William (Corby)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Price, Sir David
Thorne, Neil


Raffan, Keith
Thurnham, Peter


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rathbone, Tim
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Redwood, John
Tracey, Richard


Renton, Tim
Tredinnick, David


Rhodes James, Robert
Trippier, David


Riddick, Graham
Twinn, Dr Ian


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rost, Peter
Walden, George


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Ryder, Richard
Waller, Gary


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Walters, Sir Dennis


Sayeed, Jonathan
Ward, John


Scott, Nicholas
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Warren, Kenneth


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Watts, John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wells, Bowen


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wheeler, John


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Whitney, Ray


Shersby, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Sims, Roger
Wiggin, Jerry


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wilkinson, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wilshire, David


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Winterton, Nicholas


Squire, Robin
Wolfson, Mark


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wood, Timothy


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Woodcock, Mike


Steen, Anthony
Yeo, Tim


Stern, Michael
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stevens, Lewis
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)



Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Tellers for the Noes:


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.


Sumberg, David

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to. MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House notes that it is now one year since the Government introduced a simpler, fairer, more flexible system of income-related benefits and that the uprating which took place yesterday added a further £2·2 billion to spending on social security, now running at £51 billion a year; and congratulates the Government on the success of its economic policies which have enabled it not only to fulfil the pledge to maintain the value of the basic retirement pension in line with price movements but also to use the new system of income-related benefits to direct additional help this year of over a quarter of a billion pounds beyond the normal uprating to those in greatest need.

Construction Industry (Safety)

Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move, That this House, alarmed that the number of fatal and major accidents on building sites is up by two-thirds since 1981, and noting the Government's responsibility in encouraging relentless commercial pressures whilst at the same time failing to enforce safety standards, fully supports the efforts of workers and trade unions in the industry to press for higher health and safety standards; and calls upon the Government to increase inspection, improve site management and enforce tougher penalties that counter effectively profit pressures and managerial negligence.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Meacher: The Opposition have chosen to debate safety in the construction industry because it represents a microcosm of the rising toll of preventable carnage that has affected all our industries over the last 10 years. The facts are not in dispute. Last year 157 building workers were killed on site, nearly one quarter of them in London alone. The number of fatal and major accidents is up by no less than two thirds on 1981, and on average a construction worker is killed or seriously injured every hour and less serious accidents occur every two minutes. Those are Government figures. They are shocking enough, but, by concentrating on the immediate causes of fatal and major accidents, even those figures ignore the far greater number of construction-related deaths, as many as 4,000 a year, caused later by bronchitis, cancer and other diseases of dust and lousy working conditions.
The Health and Safety Executive lays the blame for all this with the employers. According to "Blackspot Construction", the publication of the Health and Safety Executive in June last year, 90 per cent. of deaths on building sites could have been prevented, and at least 70 per cent. were directly due to the negligence of management. The Government accept no responsibility. With regard to building sites, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State told the House earlier this year, with mind-blowing complacency, that he was
confident the law is already being enforced stringently."— [Official Report, 17 January 1989; Vol. 145, c. 168.]
Let us consider the facts. There are only 85 construction inspectors for the entire country. In London there are only 12 who have to cover 200,000 building sites, so that each inspector is responsible for 17,000 building sites. If that is what the Under-Secretary calls stringent enforcement of the law, let us compare it with the near doubling of the number of social security fraud inspectors by the Government. If only the Government were as anxious to stop death and serious injury in the workplace as they are to stop benefit fraud, we would not have half the number of accidents.
How can the Minister seriously claim that the law is being enforced stringently when in London last year there were 36 deaths on construction sites and 413 major injuries, but there were only 18 prosecutions? The average fine was a piffling £1,050, scarcely even pocket money for some major construction firms. How is the law being enforced stringently when no action was taken on more than half the sites where a death or major injury occurred?
In their amendment the Government have found only two measures which they have taken to halt the rising toll

of death and serious injury and those are enforcement blitzes and publicity campaigns—[Interruption.] I am surprised that Conservative Members are so disinterested in this subject and the rising roll call of death that they find it amusing to talk of other matters when this high level of carnage is happening in the industry as a result of the Government's omissions.
Clearly the news has not trickled through to the Secretary of State for Employment that enforcement blitzes and publicity campaigns have been dismissed as inadequate by the Health and Safety Executive. The HSE notes about publicity that there was no improvement in site safety where the agent or supervisor knew of the blitz campaign compared with where they did not. The HSE also refuted the Secretary of State's claims in the Government's amendment by concluding:
Clearly even a high level of publicity does not on its own achieve improved safety on sites.
We await further proposals from the Government about these problems, but so far they have produced none.
The Government fair no better with their blitz campaigns. The HSE found that there was no significant reduction in death and serious injury on construction sites during the campaigns. That is a pretty sobering conclusion. The HSE also found that the issuing of prohibition notices during the two years of blitzes also revealed no significant improvement in site safety. That is not the Labour party view; it is the view of the HSE. So much for the way in which the Government hyped the blitzes as a great success.

Mr. Harry Cohen: With regard to publicity and the Government taking these matters seriously, the Government do not even appear to be taking this debate seriously, because the Secretary of State for Employment is not going to answer these very important points about safety on construction sites. He is too busy creating mayhem in the docks.

Mr. Meacher: Anyone watching our proceedings and seeing that there are only seven or eight Conservative Back Benchers here, compared with many more Labour Members, will draw the right conclusion about the importance which the Government attach to health and safety. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) is aware, when the Secretary of State for Employment made his statement about the dock labour scheme the Conservative Benches were full to brimming because the Conservatives want confrontation. They are not interested in health and safety.
There would be a real difference in the position if there were proper deterrent penalties. However, the Secretary of State will not impose such penalties. On 6 January The Independent reported:
Mr. Fowler does not support calls for top company personnel to be jailed where health and safety has been flouted. He hoped safety breaches would be taken 'very seriously indeed' by the courts
even though he knows that there is abundant evidence that that will not happen. The Independent continued quoting the Secretary of State, who said:
I do not think we should go to the lengths of sending, people to prison.
Perhaps we should not go to the lengths of sending people to their deaths on manifestly unsafe building sites. The Independent continued:


His department was 'looking at' the use of television to advertise the safety message. The medium has been heavily used to promote Government training schemes.
That is certainly true. Obviously the Secretary of State can find £4 million to revive his flagging employment training programme, but that only involves taking people off the unemployment register. When it comes to paying for media coverage to save people's lives, the Secretary of State is only "looking at" the matter. What a stark difference.
Our case is not just that the Government's record on health and safety in the construction industry is limp and feeble, even though it certainly is; it is much more serious than that. In their amendment, the Government conveniently place all the blame on
employers and others on site;
Our central contention is that the Government have wilfully generated a commercial climate in which employers are forced to make a choice between getting business and safety, and workers are forced to make a choice between keeping their jobs and safety—[Interruption.] I am glad that the Secretary of State for Employment has finally decided to join us. However, we are disappointed to learn that he does not regard health and safety as sufficiently important to address the House and has delegated this task to his junior.
By encouraging a climate of unrelenting commercial pressure while failing to enforce safety standards, the Government have undermined 100 times over such small health and safety intitiatives as they have taken. The climate of intensified competition, of reduced contract times and heavy penalty clauses for delay have helped to squeeze health and safety out of money contracts.
Mr. Len Dodds, the chief safety adviser to Balfour Beatty, one of our major construction firms, has said:
It does appear that to obtain a satisfactory safety performance on major construction projects a minimum figure of between 6–7 per cent. of total labour costs should be allowed … Responsible contracting companies have been seriously disadvantaged by the cowboy element in our industry under-cutting prices, which inevitably means ignoring safety provisions.
In other words, the untrammelled commercial pressures unleashed by the Government, combined with their abject failure to enforce proper safety standards, have, according to a senior construction executive, caused the safety margin to be squeezed out. That is the essence of our charge against the Government.
There is an estimated £12 billion worth of building work going on at present in London and the south-east, a much higher level than for many years. Clients are taking advantage of the current no holds barred business climate to demand completion from contractors in record time. However, at the same time, more building workers are self-employed and at the mercy of the casualisation of the industry which has created a huge hire and fire labour turnover.
The truth is not the Government's facile view about the causes of the rising level of accidents. The root of the worsening record of the construction industry lies in the lack of training. In the White Paper published last November the Government are once again reviving the proposal to end the construction industry training board. The roots of the problem lie with the failure to enforce current safety legislation, the increase in casual labour, the

decline in union membership, which the Government have done their best to encourage, the increasing fragmentation of the industry and the growth in sub-contracting.
The Secretary of State's response to all that has been pitifully narrow minded. The Government are planning to make the wearing of hard hats compulsory on construction sites. That response was given on 17 January. No one would disagree with that; it should have been done many years ago. However, it completely misses the point about the wider structural causes of the rising toll of death and serious injury. The Government's only concession is contained in the statement made by the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), on 17 January when he said:
Health and Safety Executive inspectors will also be paying more attention to the quality of site management and its ability to manage health and safety."—[Official Report, 17 January 1989; Vol. 145, c. 147.]
That is a noticeably vague statement. What he does not say is how that is to have any cutting edge when each inspector in London has to deal with 17,000 building sites apiece.
I want to make it clear to the House that the Labour party gives a far higher priority to health and safety than do the Thatcherite Government with their unfettered commercialism. I want to spell out briefly a seven-point programme which would transform the appalling safety record which the Secretary of State's current laxity has produced.
First, we will bring forward a charter for employees which will give equal status to all workers, part time as well as full time, which cannot be signed away on the demand of an employer for a new contract or, as with the lump, ignored because there is no contract. Under our proposals, all workers currently employed as lump labour will be covered by basic rights on pay, conditions of work, employment practices and health and safety. In effect, the lump will no longer exist and one of the fundamental causes of the worsening accident record in construction will be removed.
Secondly, we will increase the number and the role of the inspectorate and union safety representatives. On larger sites safety representatives should be full time. If convenors are in larger firms, why not safety representatives on larger sites? We shall also introduce the important concept of roving safety representatives who will have the right to inspect any site in their area either at their own instigation or on the invitation of those who work on that site. For the first time, that will give a measure of safety to building workers who believe that their lives are being put at risk by dangerous working conditions.
Thirdly, we will outlaw blacklisting. According to the booklet entitled "Against Democracy: the True Story of the Economic League", which was published last year, Service Group companies, contruction's self-sufficient organisation within the Economic League,
just call people 'troublemakers' … blacklisting on grounds of health and safety activity is the most common thing.
Instead of that disgraceful state of affairs where people are victimised simply because they complain about inadequate health and safety provision, we shall guarantee the right of individual workers to be represented by trade unions on a number of issues, including health and safety.
Fourthly, we will use contract compliance to ensure that at least minimum health and safety standards are


always adhered to in the awarding of Government contracts and, indeed, on all public contracts which involve public expenditure.
Fifthly, we will make it clear that responsibility for site safety is placed squarely on the main contractor, whatever the management arrangements on a particular site. That is of great importance because it effectively remedies the present dissipation of control and responsibility where there is a series of sub-contractors. The Health and Safety Executive regards that as one of the major causes of rising accidents.
That also provides an answer to something that the Secretary of State should be considering—the alarming finding by the Health and Safety Executive that on one in every five sites visited there was no site agent and no supervisor available. Our measure would provide an answer to that by squarely putting the responsibility where it should lie—on the client and the main contractor.
Sixthly, we shall see that the Health and Safety Commission takes a stronger line. I know from my contacts that many inspectors would wish it so to do. We shall require the commission to record its decisions and to make them publicly available in order to discourage employer representatives from seeking to veto safety initiatives. We shall also encourage the executive to prosecute senior management under its powers under section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to appeal against light sentences—the Government are perfectly prepared to do that in other cases, so why not for health and safety?—and to invite the police to make manslaughter charges in cases of gross neglect.
Seventhly, penalties for negligence that causes death or serious injury must be tough enough to counter powerful commercial pressures, as I have outlined. At present, fines are laughable, if not insulting to the families of those who die or who are maimed. For example, Balfour Beatty, whose pre-tax profits for 1987 were £130 million, was fined just £2,700 after being found criminally guilty of three health and safety offences on three occasions during 1986. That is rather like using a nut to crack a sledgehammer. Such fines are pathetic and inadequate.
The horrific level of deaths and maimings at work will be reversed only by making negligent management liable to hefty gaol sentences. Dangerous driving that kills is subject to the punishment of a gaol sentence and dangerous management in the workplace that kills should be similarly punished, as it is already in the United States, Italy and Sweden.
We agree with Dr. John Cullen, the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission, who last month said:
I believe that there have been circumstances where employers should have been jailed … I think that a jail sentence would help concentrate the minds of employers who might not be carrying out their duties under health and safety laws.
Only the Secretary of State is ready to send people to prison for benefit fraud, but not employers who cause other people's death at work.
We have a programme to match our determined commitment to higher health and safety standards. It represents a huge advance on the facile and cosmetic approach of the Government who, whenever there is a choice, put profit above safety every time. We may well make life harder for negligent employers—a few famous

collars in jug would work wonders for health and safety —but it would be a small price to pay for safeguarding the lives and limbs of millions of our working people.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Cope): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
deploring the high accident rate on construction sites and noting that 90 per cent. of construction accidents are preventable, recognises that the prime responsibility for safety lies with employers and others on site; acknowledges the vigorous action which the Health and Safety Commission and Executive have taken through enforcement blitzes and publicity campaigns on construction safety; and welcomes the increased provision which the Government has made available to the Health and Safety Executive thereby enabling the Executive to increase the number of inspectors employed on construction work.'.
It may surprise the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) to learn that I very much welcome the debate and the opportunity that it gives to draw attention to the dangers of the construction industry and what is being done about it, but I deplore the hon. Gentleman's efforts to twist those dangers into political point scoring. The hon. Gentleman is hopelessly over the top in his political invective. We are used to that. It is so normal that I was able to write that firmly into my speech without even listening to him. As usual, it damages his case—which I do not mind—but today it also damages the message that should go out from the House which should be one of clear and universal support for. the Health and Safety Commission and Executive in what they are doing to reduce the carnage in the construction industry.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, for more than 15 years we have had a health and safety regime, run by the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive. Parliament made the HSC the primary body in health and safety, recommending legislation and enforcing the laws we pass. The HSC's work, quite rightly, is based on elaborate consultation, and it has a whole family of committees, both technical and consultative. The HSC and those committees have on them representatives of trade unions as well as employers and others. It is very important that the HSC and HSE have the backing not only of Ministers—which they have, in full—but of right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House.
The consultative procedure is sometimes slow but it delivers wide support for the measures that it produces, and that is valuable. Opposition Members should welcome that and support the HSC if they value it, because consultation is an essential prerequisite of safety at work on construction sites and elsewhere. It is the people on site —management and employees—who can do most to improve safety. However, there is no doubt that it needs improving.
There are too many accidents and deaths on construction sites. As the hon. Gentleman said, in 1987–88 there were 157 deaths—about one in three of work-related fatalities—and many more accidents resulting in injuries. Some were serious while others, thankfully, were less so. That adds up to waste, inefficiency and lost time. More importantly, it adds up to a catalogue of pain, suffering and grief.

Mr. Allen McKay: At least the Minister has got the order right, for a Conservative.

Mr. Cope: More importantly, everyone concerned must recognise that construction and demolition work is inherently dangerous. A building site is essentially a temporary workplace. Its condition, by definition, changes day by day, with different tradesmen arriving at the site and leaving it daily. It has a changing population and changing conditions to a much greater extent than does a factory or other fixed site. However, as the hon. Member for Oldham, West also said very fairly, many of the 157 deaths were avoidable. Last year's report by the Health and Safety Executive, "Blackspot Construction", from which the hon. Gentleman quoted, showed that about 90 per cent. of fatal accidents are preventable. if basic precautions had been taken and common sense prevailed, perhaps 140 of those 157 people would still be alive today.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West tried to make political capital out of all that, but he knows as well as I do that the figures for major accidents are affected by improvements in reporting requirements introduced at the suggestion of the HSC and approved by the House. However, the figures for fatal accidents are much clearer. The average number of deaths in construction is down under this Government by comparison with the last Labour Government. I do not crow about that, because I want the figure to be lower. Nevertheless, it was a bad political point for the hon. Gentleman to make. That is also true of his remarks about inspectors. In 1979, 86 inspectors were engaged on construction work. I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman intended to mislead the House, but he did so—for today there are 99 inspectors, representing a 15 per cent. increase. It is for the HSE and HSC, not Ministers, to decide on the number of inspectors required for that work.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Does the Minister condone the fact that the Government fund six times as many dole snoopers in London as they do factory inspectors? Where do the Government's priorities lie?

Mr. Cope: The hon. Member can always be relied upon to introduce a red herring into the debate, and he has done so on this occasion.
The long-term drop in accidents is welcome, but it is not enough.

Mr. Ron Leighton: I am sure that the Minister does not intend to mislead the House, but although it is true that inspectors have been moved from other duties to construction work, it is also true that for four years under the present Government the recruitment of factory inspectors was stopped, and there are fewer inspectors today than there were 10 years ago. More inspectors may have been moved to construction, but the Minister knows that no inspectors were recruited for four years and that their number was cut. If I catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall give the House the relevant figures.

Mr. Cope: The hon. Gentleman can give the House those figures, if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is true that the number of factory inspectors is lower than it was 10 years ago, but it is also true that the figure is rising. It is true also that the shadow Cabinet, in its wisdom, presumably advised by the hon. Member for Oldham, West, chose to debate construction safety, where the number of inspectors has increased by 15 per cent. and where the average number of deaths under a Conservative

Government has been fewer than under Labour. That was the Opposition's choice, not ours, and that is the basis of the debate.
The reduction in the number of fatal construction accidents is welcome, but it is not enough. The most important finding of the studies mentioned is that 90 per cent. of fatal accidents examined were avoidable. The hon. Gentleman may pour cold water on this, but we believe that the first essential is to make people aware of the dangers and of how to avoid them. That is why we encouraged the excellent new literature produced by the HSC and HSE. It is well produced and covers every level. Some of it is highly technical, and some of it popular in format. All of it is valuable in increasing awareness, and so are the specific campaigns—the "blitzes"—run by the inspectorate. Also valuable were the special visits paid by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to construction sites, to draw the attention of the media to the necessity for safety. So is the special book for small firms that I had the honour to launch a couple of months ago jointly with John Banham of the Confederation of British Industry and Norman Willis of the Trades Union Congress. We want the message to go out loud and clear that 90 per cent. of fatal construction accidents are preventable.
Awareness alone is not enough. Training is also important, and that is why I welcome the emphasis placed by the construction industry training board, big companies and large sections of the industry on training. As it happens, today sees the launch of a new initiative by the Open College and the CITB. The House will be aware of the renewed support for the Open College that I announced recently. Today, it announced two new courses, "A Site more Safe" and "A Site Better Off-. They are both multimedia courses that make use of audio and video tapes as well as an associated television series that will be broadcast on Channel 4 from 20 April. Open learning is particularly suitable given the irregular lifestyle of those working in the construction industry, and I am sure that those new courses will be very valuable.
For those who do not get the message, there remains the force of the law. The key power of construction inspectors —the difference between them and other safety experts —lies in their enforcement powers. During their construction blitz, inspectors issued more than 2,000 prohibition notices. Such notices are important and can prove expensive for the employers concerned.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister acknowledge how important it is that employees receive information about site safety? But how will the Minister deal with the problem that when workers make complaints they are placed on a blacklist?

Mr. Cope: If the hon. Gentleman can produce evidence of people being blacklisted for reasons connected with safety, I shall certainly look into it. So far, I have seen no such evidence.
In 1987–88, 2,874 prohibition notices were issued in construction. I remarked that they can prove expensive for the employers concerned. They are also immediate in their effect. They can be used immediately to close down whatever piece of machinery or section of the site against which the notice has been issued. That can close a whole construction site for one day or for several days, while the


matter is put right. That can prove extremely expensive for the employer, and it should not be sneezed at as a quick, direct and forceful method of imposing site safety.
There were also 610 prosecutions last year in the construction industry, which is a considerable increase. The publicity for convictions is considerable and the fine is not always the end of the matter because civil proceedings often follow. Nor should any manager or supervisor imagine that the fine will apply only to the company. A fortnight ago, in north Wales, there was a court case following a fatal accident at a steel erection site. The site agent and the senior foreman were each fined £2,000, as well as a fine being imposed on the company.
The levels of fines imposed are a matter for the courts in individual cases, but anyone who thinks that his company can afford a fine, and does not need to bother about it, should remember two factors. First, BP was recently fined £500,000 and £250,000 on the same day—it was not for a construction accident but the law was the same. That is the highest fine so far imposed, but it does not mean that higher fines will not be imposed in other cases. Secondly, there is clear evidence that safe sites are profitable sites. That is not a matter for speculation but a demonstrable phenomenon.
The specific regulations on construction under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 are considerable.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: Is it not true that, in this country, no employer who has been found guilty of negligence that has caused a fatal accident on a building site has ever been imprisoned for criminal negligence? Should not such employers be sentenced? If it is their fault that a worker dies, is it not true that only imprisonment will make them take the matter seriously? When great profits are at stake, fines of £400, or even £2,000, will not improve the position.

Mr. Cope: I was drawing attention to a fine of £750,000. However, suspended prison sentences have been passed in the past and may well be passed in the future. That is a matter for the courts.

Mr. James Wallace: The Minister has mentioned a variety of sums. Does he know from his own experience and knowledge whether one can insure against such fines? Does he favour legislation to ensure that one could not insure against such fines?

Mr. Cope: I cannot give an authoritative answer about whether the fines are insurable, although I doubt it. I shall certainly look into the matter and, if possible, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will respond to that point.
There are many specific regulations on construction under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, as well as the broad and effective provisions of the Act itself. However, the HSC and the HSE are working up new regulations—a fact which, I was glad to see, had penetrated the mind of the hon. Member for Oldham, West—which will take account of modern conditions and fill some gaps where the present law is less demanding than it should be.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West referred to the compulsory wearing of safety helmets. We have received prospective regulations from the Health and Safety

Commission and shall soon lay them before the House for the House to decide on them. Those regulations would make it compulsory to wear safety helmets on construction sites.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I have had correspondence with the Minister concerning Sikhs in rife building industry. The legislation would affect a devout Sikh, although not one who has given up the turban wearing with the long hair on top—which, I should say to the Minister, is to be recommended as a measure of safety if hair can be grown on top. I successfully introduced a Bill on turbans, helmets and motor cycling. The House took the view that it was right to make a religious exemption for turbaned Sikhs. Therefore, I hope that the House will support such an exemption in a measure that applies to building sites because turbaned Sikhs would have to leave the building industry if the legislation were enforced universally. If necessary, I shall be happy to provide such

Mr. Cope: No doubt we shall come to that debate at some point. The Health and Safety Commission, which considered the matter and had public consultation on it, recommended that there should be no exception for turbaned Sikhs. However, we are considering that matter, as, no doubt, the House will wish to do in due course. I am conscious—as are others—of the Bill relating to motor cycles that the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) successfully introduced in Parliament.
With regard to hair on top of the head, I do not think that I am doing any better than the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall, but if he has any suggestions to improve my state I shall consider them carefully.
The regulations involving safety helmets are not the only ones coming forward. Other regulations are also being developed by the commission and the executive—the right place for them to be developed—with the active co-operation of trade unions, employers and others involved in the Health and Safety Commission and the consultative process. Those in the pipeline include regulations to require more short-term but high-risk activities to be notified to the inspectorate. At the moment, the inspectorate must be notified if sites are likely to last longer than six weeks—the length of time is one measure of the importance of the site, but certain high-risk activities may last less than six weeks.
Other regulations are being considered to extend the requirement for safety supervisors to smaller companies —at present the number of employees is 20. Regulations are also proposed to provide for better management, and co-ordination on multi-contractor sites, bringing up to date 25-year-old regulations—the hon. Member for Oldham, West picked up this point from the HSC and the HSE.
Each of those proposals will be an important step forward. I understand that the Health and Safety Commission hopes to bring them forward later this year with a view to making the regulations in the course of the next year.
Some attention has recently been drawn to safety on the youth training scheme. About 66,000 young people are on the YTS in the construction industry, 37,000 of them on construction industry training board schemes. I have already explained that construction work is more dangerous than other work. That is also true of construction work done by young people on the YTS as


compared with other trainees. Our evidence—which is not conclusive—suggests that youth trainees are less at risk than older construction workers. However, that is no reason for complacency; the accident rate is still too high. Tragically, there was one fatality last year involving a 17-year-old electrical trainee who fell from a ladder. I am glad to say that there were no fatalities in 1987 and there have been none so far this year.
As the House knows, we have been re-examining arrangements for ensuring health and safety on the YTS. The basic arrangements are sound. Trainees, like employees, have all the legal protection of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. Every trainee receives advice and instruction on health and safety matters and they have full insurance. The providers of training—the managing agents—must have effective safety arrangements in order to be awarded a YTS contract. Under the terms of that contract, managing agents must exercise a duty of care towards all their trainees and ensure that training takes place only in premises which have been notified to the Health and Safety Executive or equivalent authorities. They are also contractually obliged to ensure that work experience providers and shop floor training supervisors share in the duty of care, are fully informed of their responsibilities and carry them out conscientiously.
YTS providers are monitored by trained staff of the Training Agency and receive extensive guidance on health and safety. At regional level, its monitoring is overseen by professionally qualified health and safety experts, some of whom are former factory inspectors. Nevertheless, we have decided to institute practical steps to improve awareness and understanding of these important matters and to tighten controls on the providers of training and work experience.
The Training Agency is issuing additional new and improved health and safety guidance, in particular a document entitled "A Good Start to Assessing Placement Safety", for wide distribution to training providers and others. It complements the existing range of documentation. My copy is hot off the press and rather exclusive, but the bulk order will be delivered in the next few days and I shall place copies in the Library.
The Training Agency is making stronger provision in the standard YTS training proposal, which becomes part of the contract if the proposal is accepted, to ensure that each YTS training provider states its monitoring policy clearly in advance. It specifically identifies and monitors agreements that prohibit use of machines or locations by YTS trainees. We are inviting the Health and Safety Executive and other independent experts to examine YTS health and safety arrangements and documentation and to advise us on further improvements.
We are commissioning from independent experts a new study of YTS accidents between April 1986 and March 1989. It follows earlier studies of accidents to young trainees commissioned from consultants at Aston university, which were published in 1985 and 1987. We hope that it will be completed about the turn of the year, and it will of course be published.
Taken together, those measures will strengthen the safety regime in YTS, including the construction industry, but I must stress that the primary legal and moral responsibility remains with managing agents and those in

charge of young trainees. We will not give YTS contracts to those who do not have proper safety arrangements. We withdraw the contracts of those who are not carrying out their responsibilities properly. YTS managing agents and training providers are just as liable as employers to prosecution, notices and civil liability when things go wrong.
For safety, Acts, regulations made under them, guidance, inspectors and courts are important, but not as important as the man or woman on the site. Construction is inherently dangerous, but the majority of accidents are avoidable, and that is the message that we must send out. They arise from carelessness, thoughtlessness, lack of planning and lack of attention to equipment. In a moment, a human life can be lost or blighted by disablement. Once that has happened, nothing can restore the position; no fine or inspector can recompense the family. Hon. Members should not trade politics but should back the Health and Safety Commission and its allies.

Mr. Eric S. Heller: The Minister, as so often in the past, made a statement that I have heard from different people in the construction industry—that the fault for the poor safety record lies with the worker.

Mr. Cope: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman so soon. I said not the worker only, but those on site—it is both.

Mr. Heffer: I assume that most of the people on site are workers, whether they are managerial workers or people doing physical work.
For years, workers in the construction industry have taken risks. Some have been tempted by bonus schemes to cut corners. To earn a little more money in relation to lump labour, some workers have taken risks, sometimes with horrible results. It would be wrong for me to say otherwise. I know the construction industry because I was a carpenter and joiner for many years before I became a Member of Parliament. I do not deny for one moment that some workers will take risks, but those risks arise from the nature and character of an industry in which profits are put before the interests of workers. It comes down to profits being made at the expense of safety. If a mistake is made by a worker, which does not happen often because he will suffer as a result, it is because he is cutting corners because the employer wants to make extra profit by finishing the job more quickly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) made an excellent speech, making seven good points on behalf of the Labour party to which I am sure that workers in the industry and trade unions will respond and which give us a positive campaign for which we can fight.
The Minister said that he welcomed the debate. I find that strange. He will remember that I tabled an early-day motion which attracted about 240 signatures—probably the largest number of supporters for such a motion—from hon. Members of all political parties, including two Conservative Members. If the Government thought that their position was so strong and that they had a story to tell, why did not the Leader of the House, whom I asked every Thursday for a debate, rush forward and say, "We have a great story to tell, so we shall have a debate at the earliest possible opportunity"? On every occasion, I was


told, "You cannot have a debate next week, but we shall look into it." We never got round to having a debate, and we are having one this evening only because my right hon. and hon. Friends in the shadow Cabinet have decided to have one on this important issue in Opposition time. I am delighted that the motion is not dissimilar to the one that I tabled.
Safety in the construction industry has always been a problem. I can testify that it is a dangerous industry because I worked in it for many years. The issue of health and safety in the industry is of great importance, to such an extent that workers in the London area, though members of trade unions, have got together with the local authority and ordinary people to launch a construction safety campaign. One of the points they make in their document is "Your health, their wealth", the very point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and myself—that it is a case of profits before the interests of the people.
What is so tragic is that a worker in the construction industry—it may be a woman nowadays—can leave home in the morning perfectly healthy and not come home because he or she has been killed or maimed. That is a horrible tragedy. It is something that Members of Parliament do not experience—if they do not get home it may be due to a heart attack or the like, but it would not be because of the work that they do here; it would not be because the employer had failed to comply with safety regulations and had put profits before the interests of his work force. Yet that is what happens daily in the construction industry.
The Government amendment rightly says that 90 per cent. of construction accidents are preventable, and that prime responsibility lies with employers. This was pointed out in the early-day motion and in the Opposition motion today. All too often construction workers die or are maimed due to lack of responsibility on the part of the employer. It is therefore right to say that the Government are responsible, by encouraging relentless commercial pressures and at the same time failing to enforce safety standards.
The point is emphasised in the introduction of the Health and Safety Executive document, "Blackspot Construction", published in 1988, which begins by saying:
During the five year period 1981 to 1985, 739 people were killed by the construction industry. Five hundred and sixty one were employees; 120 were self-employed; 47 were members of the public—including 21 children.
The next point is very important:
Death comes to construction sites all too often. The industry is among the most dangerous of all industries in the post war period and the post war period of improvement in the annual toll of death has, in recent years, come to an end.
If the improvement has come to an end in recent years, that means in the years of the Tory Government. So when the Minister of State claims that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West is making political points he is suggesting that his own document is making political points. In fact, this is reality.
The document goes on:
This and the rising trend in the numbers of serious injuries reported to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in 1981–85 has prompted increasing concern in the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) and its construction industry Advisory Committee (CONIAC).
Many of the workers killed and maimed in the industry are highly skilled. It is interesting to note that 49 people of managerial and professional status were killed in that

period; in my own trade, 37 carpenters and joiners; 19 bricklayers; 13 plumbers and glaziers, and so on. It is riot just the labourer digging holes who is affected.
Hon. Members have seen the television programme showing a woman inspector going around various sites. She stopped work at a particular site and had only been off the site for a few moments when they started work again, with the employer telling them they were either back at work or sacked because it was easy to replace them. The inspector had to go back and stop the work again. That was a recent television programme showing what actually goes on in the industry in London.
The situation has not improved since 1985; in fact, it has got worse. In 1977 the number of fatal accidents was 130. The Minister is trying to make out how much better it is now. In 1977 the number of employees in the industry was 1,167,000; in 1987 the number of fatal accidents was 100, but the number of employees in the industry at that time was 984,000–183,000 fewer. If there has been a certain fall-off in the rate of accidents, there has also been a fall-off at certain times in the number of workers in the industry. It is very interesting that the number of self-employed has gone up, with lump labour in particular. In 1981, 11 self-employed workers met with fatal accidents, and there were 40 major injuries. In 1987, 41 self-employed workers were fatally injured and 450 suffered major injuries. In 1981 there were 388,000 self-employed and in 1987 542,000, so it is clear that there is a correlation between the number of self-employed and the number of fatal accidents.
On 1 January 1979, 86 factory inspectors were employed in construction. According to Government figures given to me by the Library of the House, on 1 September 1987 there were 75. To be fair, in addition to the 75 experienced inspectors in 1987, there were a further 17 qualified inspectors. This total of 92 qualified inspectors compares with a total of 90 at the beginning of this year—a number which is unlikely to have changed by September 1989, when the recent public expenditure White Paper envisages that there will also be 90 trained inspectors. It is intended that there will be 100 such inspectors by 1990, but even with those numbers, how on earth are they dealing with the real situation? It is high time that the number of inspectors in the construction industry was doubled. We need not the 100 that the Minister boasts that we shall get but at least 200. Even that would not be enough, but it would be a great improvement on what we have now. Despite the safety blitz, whole sections of the construction industry are without safety supervision. Where trade unions are weak on a site, the employers get away with murder.
More than 2,000 dangerous sites were shut down by factory inspectors during the safety blitz. More than 10,000 contractors on 8,272 sites were inspected. Yet during the year of the blitz, which ended in March 1988, 157 people were killed—including 16 members of the public—and 21,000 people were injured. In London there were 38 deaths. Yet the average fine imposed on the 47 companies brought to court was £837. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West said, that is a joke. When will real penalties be imposed? When will people who are criminally negligent be put in prison?
If the Government are so keen to deal with safety in the construction industry, when do they intend to introduce legislation? They are keen to introduce, out of the blue, legislation that affects dock workers. How much better it


would be if dockers did not have to consider taking strike action. Instead, we ought to have been welcoming Government action to eliminate death and injury in the construction industry.
The general secretary of my union, Mr. Albert Williams, was right to declare that death caused by employers' neglect should be an indictable offence and that there should be prosecution for corporate manslaughter, but it is cheaper for employers to take the risk of being fined than to pay for the introduction of proper safety standards.
We need far more health and safety inspectors. There should be an elected health and safety representative at every workplace. My trade union is the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians. I am proud to say that I have now served for 50 years in that union, beginning in the old Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers, which then merged with UCATT. The former regional secretary of the Merseyside branch of the ASW argued that every member must be his own safety officer, and I agree—where there are good, organised trade union jobs there is collective power to enforce the regulations—but the unions are becoming increasingly weak in certain areas because of the growth of lump labour and individualism. Workers are therefore unable to enforce safety regulations, as they can if there is a good trade union organisation. That is one of the problems in the construction industry.
UCATT is conducting a safe site campaign and has produced an excellent document. [Interruption.] Do you mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker? If I speak for half an hour, that is a matter for me, not for you. With all due respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, even if I have been speaking for 20 minutes, I am entitled to do so. I do not intend to speak for much longer, but it is not your job to mention to the Whip that I ought to be thinking of sitting down.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The hon. Gentleman has been called early in the debate. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to speak and time is getting very short.

Mr. Heffer: I will reply to that by telling you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I tabled a motion that carried the names of 240 hon. Members. The debate has arisen from the desire of those who supported the motion that it should take place. I am ending my speech by referring to what my union is doing. It is important that the House of Commons and the country should know that if employers conducted themselves as my trade union conducts itself and as the workers in the industry conduct themselves, there would be fewer accidents and deaths. There would be a little less profit, but that would benefit the workers in the construction industry.
It is not just a question of the safety regulations. There is the question of chemicals, asbestos and wood preservatives on site, and also the problem of noise and the handling of loads. Those issues cannot be brushed aside lightly. More deaths and injuries are caused to workers in the construction industry because of the materials that they work with than happens in any other industry. I make no apology for speaking at length on the issue. It is dear to my heart and to the hearts of many other people. I am part of that industry, even though I have been a Member

of Parliament for 25 years. I have fought for a hell of a long time to get the House to discuss safety in the construction industry and I make no apologies for having spoken at length on the subject.
When I was an apprentice, conditions in the industry were little different from those described in "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists". Despite all the technology and the health and safety regulations, when I go on to some sites today I think that conditions there have returned to those described in that book. It is time that the people of this country did something positive about that. That is why I welcome the debate. I hope that the motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West will be carried.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House once more that time is very limited. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to speak. I hope that those who are called will be fair to the others by making brief speeches.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) on his 50 years in his union, but he attached great blame to employers and at times to the self-employed. I was disappointed that he did not point out that there is a great need for good training and safety standards to be inculcated at an early stage. I understand that 107 deaths were due to industrial accidents in 1988. Half those tragic deaths were of people who had been working on site for less than one week, which makes it much worse. It also emphasises the critical need for training at an early stage.
The seven-point plan proposed by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) is a march back to the over-regulated 1960s and apparently proposes controls and burdens on businesses. Surely that is not the way forward. We need higher standards, but we will not achieve them by imposing burdens that have not been properly thought through or considered. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman about higher fines. It is easy to be simplistic and consider only the fine for a criminal offence. Any firm that is negligent is liable to massive damages in the civil court. I could reel off a number of cases in which firms have had to pay damages well in excess of £250,000 when someone has suffered death or serious injury, and that must not be overlooked. I also agree with the hon. Member for Oldham, West about the responsibility of a main contractor. That must also be considered extremely carefully.
I shall confine my remarks to the construction industry training board which is based in my constituency, as the Under-Secretary of State knows because he has been there. It is a centre of excellence and has a profound effect on my constituency. It is located not in a town but in a rural area and employs about 500 people. At least 10 villages are largely dependent on the CITB for their entire economy. Its impact locally is quite enormous, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is well aware. Since the centre was opened, 95,000 adults have been trained. It trains 5,000 people a year on 50 different courses. This year the CITB is responsible for 35,000 YTS places.
Paragraph 4.24 of the White Paper on training criticised the failure of industrial training boards to make a


significant impact on training generally, but that does not apply to the CITB, given its record in training over the years, its standards of excellence and the emphasis it places on safety right down the line. I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State mentioned today's initiative. "A Site More Safe" which is being launched by the CITB in conjunction with the Open College and Channel 4 and is aimed at those on the sites who are responsible for site safety—the foremen and the managers. That is why it is an important initiative. I shall not elaborate further, but the CITB is constantly producing more initiatives to improve safety standards. It is aware of the need to reduce the number of deaths and injuries. It is rising to that challenge through its training infrastructure.
The White Paper contains an intention to move the ITBs to a non-statutory training organisation basis. However, the construction industry differs from all other industries. It is unique. A vast number of businesses operate within it. Its work is largely cyclical and is often dominated by large projects such as the docklands and the Channel tunnel. The work force is highly mobile. As the hon. Member for Walton pointed out, the work shop is the site itself and that is why the industry cannot be considered in a ordinary way. Training must take place on site and if the work force is constantly moving on in different directions and different employers are poaching skilled workers and constantly looking for new staff for different sites the usual rules cannot apply to the construction industry.
If every employer contributes to a scheme and pays a levy the industry will be happy as it is at the moment. However, if only some employers contribute voluntarily, inevitably there will be a great deal of poaching. If some firms train staff and workers and pay the levy, when times become difficult they may not continue to do so. The arguments in favour of a statutory levy are extremely strong. If training moves on to an entirely voluntary basis, as my right hon. Friend the Minister said, when things are going well firms will continue to pay that levy. Certainly in a time of plenty and an economic boom which we are experiencing at the moment, firms would continue to pay, but if there were a downturn or another recession—and, as I said, the construction industry is cyclical by definition—I am convinced that firms will opt out of paying that levy and the entire infrastructure of the CITB would be under pressure and that would be high-risk tactics.
I accept that the CITB must make certain changes. It must do something about its deficit of £94 million. It proposes to reduce that deficit over five years to £25 million by charging the industry more. At present the industry pays nothing at all for the 35,000 YTS trainees. I believe that it will be fair for there to be some charge. There are other ways in which the CITB can raise money commercially. It will do that, and, furthermore, it will make it very clear to the Government, if it has not already done so, that it is quite prepared to take a smaller, reduced levy over a phased period. It can live with that, but an organisation that turns over £160 million and has such a training structure obviously cannot make changes too quickly. I would be the first person to say to the CITB that its whole bureaucracy is outdated and outmoded. It has a board of 30 people which meets three or four times a year and that structure is hardly conducive to good, streamlined, effective management. So I am pressing for

structural changes to be made. However, I believe that the CITB can produce proposals that will satisfy the Minister and will be in keeping and in tune with the White Paper.
I must say to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who is to reply to the debate that if the CITB has to cut its operations in west Norfolk the effect on local employment will be immediate and extremely serious. If we were talking about King's Lynn or Norwich the surplus employment could be taken up, but in rural villages where there are very few other jobs there is very little scope for alternative employment, especially when employment in agriculture is contracting. Obviously that is of tremendous importance to my constituency, particularly when the CITB has recently moved its headquarters to Norfolk. It was a major vote of confidence in a rural area and a rural constituency for a major organisation to move its headquarters into west Norfolk and employ 500 people. If the CITB has to cut back because the statutory levy is removed or confined to labour-only sub-contractors, inevitably there will be cuts in what the organisation offers at Bircham Newton and surely that would mean major cuts in safety standards.
If the Minister is serious about trying to reduce the figure of deaths and injuries which is far too high—there were 3,624 major injuries last year—there must be training at an early stage and those 5,000 adults a year must go through the CITB. Those adults do not all work on site. Many will be operating sophisticated plant. Many of them will be operating cranes, for example. Many will be scaffolders and steeplejacks. Those are the sorts of people who must have high-cost, highly sophisticated training, and if they do not get it at the CITB, or at Bircham Newton, it is unlikely that the firms will pay for it. In that case, this catalogue of statistics will get worse, not better.
I say to the Minister of State and to the Under-Secretary that the initiatives that the Government are coming up with are excellent. What they are doing to try to boost the Health and Safety Executive is to be applauded, but I urge them to look very carefully before making any major changes in the statutory levy. That could mean only one thing: perhaps not immediately, but over a period of years, the industry would pay less for training, and in due course a centre of excellence in my constituency would decline. That would have a devastating effect on safety and on the people about whom we care most—those working in the industry. We want to get the casualty figures down, and the only way of doing so is by continuing with the CITB. I urge my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to do that. I hope that he will take my suggestion on board.

Mr. James Wallace: I will not follow the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) into a consideration of the merits and demerits of the construction industry training board, whose ability to deliver its service to a constituency a s remote as mine is somewhat incidental. However, I cannot help observing in passing that the hon. Member said that if the board were to play a lesser part, private employers would be likely to spend money on training. That does not seem a very great vote of confidence in the Government's proposals to put a greater burden of responsibility for training on the private sector.
As to the issue that is actually before the House in this debate, I do not think that there is any dispute about the fact that there is a serious problem and that this is a matter of considerable concern. That, I think, is common ground in all parts of the House. The fact that early-day motion 241 in the name of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has attracted so many signatures is indicative of the level of concern that this issue has raised. Quite honestly, I do not think that it matters whether the deaths have occurred under a Labour Administration or a Tory Administration. They are deaths, the number is far too high, and it is in the interests of every hon. Member to find ways of reducing it.
It is not entirely clear to me whether the figures that have been mentioned include deaths and injuries resulting from contact with dangerous substances and noise. I noted that last month Mr. John Cullen, the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission, indicated that far more workers on construction sites are injured or killed as a result of contact with such substances or noise than as a result of accidents. The hon. Member for Walton raised that question. Clearly it is an important issue, and we shall be interested to know how the Government are responding to the claim.
In the debate in this House on 2 December 1987—the last time, I think, that the issue of health and safety was considered at length here—the Secretary of State said that
our health and safety arrangements are fitted to cope with the needs of a modern society and a changing and expanding economy."—[Official Report, 2 December 1987; Vol. 123, c. 1004.]
In all honesty, I do not think that those comments match the situation. Since that time it has been clear that health and safety arrangements are not coping. Reference has already been made to the report "Blackspot Construction". I take encouragement from the fact that I do not think that any such great claims were made by the Minister of State when he spoke earlier today. I think that there is recognition of the fact that much more needs to be done.
As to the causes of accidents, including fatal accidents, it is all too simple to lay all of them at the door of some buccaneering builders, although I cannot deny that a good number of such builders exist, and no doubt they are responsible for many of the accidents that take place. Nor do I believe that the accidents can be laid at the door of some system of work—that it is all the result of people pursuing the profit motive. Inevitably, human nature comes into it. During my few years of practice at the Scottish Bar I acted on both sides of the argument—for employers and for employees. An amazing number of cases were put down purely to human nature. Employers can provide helmets, but the helmets are not always worn. Nor are safety harnesses always worn. That has nothing to do with failure to provide safety equipment; it is just that, for one reason or another, people think that they can do without it, and in some cases it is a question of sheer forgetfulness. Nevertheless, what is quite clear, as was indicated in the report "Blackspot Construction", is that 70 per cent. of accidents could be prevented by positive management action. Much could be done to increase awareness of safety. Awareness, I think, is the key, and lack of awareness is attributable to both employers and employees.
The report on the blitz campaign to which reference has been made showed that one third of all managers had insufficient knowledge of basic health and safety. That is a staggering figure. The report also showed that in 14 per cent. of the cases investigated no one was in charge of the work. Quite clearly, if management is unaware of important safety matters, one cannot readily expect employees to have that knowledge. As has been said by the Minister of State, particular features of the construction industry make the problems more acute. Unlike a factory, where the same conditions tend to prevail over many weeks—indeed, years—construction sites change constantly. Indeed, we are talking about different sites, as well as changing sites. A person may be on a site for only a few days, or even just a few hours. I talked earlier today to representatives of the Scottish building trade. They said to me—I regret that I do not have figures to back this up—that in the case of a long-term project such as the Torness power station construction it appeared that over a period of 10 years the level of accidents fell due to familiarity with the site. That is not always the case when building contractors move quickly from site to site.

Mr. John Ward: I agree very much with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Certainly I agree with what he says about big permanent or semi-permanent sites being much easier both to administer and to inspect. Does he recognise, however, that a great deal of the construction industry is based on very small sites with one, two or three men, and that in many cases those men are dealing with minor drainage projects, and so on? Very often that is where the greatest danger lies, and it is difficult to blame the employer alone for accidents.

Mr. Wallace: To some extent the hon. Member is making the point that I was about to make—that there is a whole series of small sites and that people may be on them for only a matter of hours. However, surely the underlying point must be taken together with the rapidly changing work force and lump labour—the fact that the person on whom one relied yesterday is not necessarily here today. That emphasises the need for a keener awareness of safety and for greater attention to safety matters. The fact that a site is small and that workers may be on it for only a few hours in no way absolves those responsible for safety factors.
The response that we have had from the Government is not adequate. The blitz campaign underlines the seriousness of the problem, but I do not believe that the increase in the budget of the Health and Safety Executive and the number of new inspectors go nearly far enough. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) illustrated the shortage of inspectors by referring to the number of sites that each inspector in London has to cover. It is my understanding that in the west of Scotland, including the great Strathclyde conurbation and the whole of the south west of Scotland, there are about five health and safety inspectors. It was graphically put to me that a health and safety inspector going to investigate a construction site in Dumfries would probably have to pass many hundreds of sites on his way there and that if he stopped to check each one he would probably never get to Dumfries.
The volume of work is immense and the necessary resources should be provided. By all means let us acknowledge what has been done, but it is clear from this


debate that far more needs to be done. We have heard the Government's response in relation to the compulsory wearing of safety helmets, and I do not dissent from that proposal at all. Indeed, I look foward to an indication from the Minister as to when it might be expected. There is good precedent for tomorrow not being early enough. I welcome the fact that more guidance material is to be made available to small firms. However, if the fundamental problem of increasing awareness is to be tackled, it is not just a question of highlighting faults, as the blitz campaign did. The Health and Safety Executive must do more by way of advising safety practices and encouraging good practices. I also agree that it is important to bring home to senior management the impact of fines. We should consider personal prosecutions rather than corporate ones. That was mentioned by the chief inspector of factories, Mr. Tony Linehan, in an article in the Financial Times of Friday 13 January:
The Health and Safety Executive plans to start prosecuting directors of construction companies running building sites where there are serious accidents…he said the time had come to move beyond prosecuting companies and to explore action against individual directors responsible for safety.
The Minister also mentioned the recent prosecution of a site agent and a senior foreman. No doubt they are now well aware of the serious lessons to be drawn from failing to enforce adequate safety standards. Until that awareness is felt at the highest level, no real action will be taken to ensure that all sectors of the construction industry recognise the need to improve safety practices.
In a recent White Paper on road traffic law, the Government rightly suggested that insurance policies which protect the drink-driver offender from the consequences of disqualification are undesirable. To that end they have reached agreement with the Association of British Insurers to phase out such policies. If the fines imposed in the construction industry are to be effective, similar consideration should he given to phasing out insurance cover against such fines. I accept, as the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West has suggested, that civil damages may be sought, but invariably such matters are covered by insurance.
More attention must be given to smaller sites. We need more inspectors. We must also stress the importance of safety in training. Safety groups should be established under the auspices of an employers federation. It may be that a small company is unable to employ a safety officer or is not fully acquainted with the vast number of existing regulations. If a number of smaller companies joined together they could employ a safety officer whose remit would be to brief his various employers on safety requirements.
This debate is worthwhile because it highlights the importance of the issue. There is no room for complacency. I am sure that we shall return to this matter in the future and I hope that, by then, some of the positive and constructive ideas that have been mentioned tonight will have been implemented. I also hope that we shall have seen a downward trend in the current unacceptable level of fatal accidents and serious injuries.

Mr. James Cran: As I am usually tail-end Charlie in debates, I assure hon. Members that I shall curtail my remarks tonight as I know that others want to speak.
I welcome this debate because I start from the premise —I assume that it is shared by all other hon. Members tonight—that the protection of the work force is the highest priority of any company. There is no question about that. I am sad, however, that, so far, this debate has not made clear that that responsibility is ably discharged by many construction companies, although there is no doubt that the construction industry faces problems. However, over-simplification will not help to solve them
I am especially struck by the fact that no Opposition Member has been able to explain why it is that other sectors of British industry, which are equally beset by commercial pressures and all the other pressures outlined tonight, have better records on health and safety than the construction industry. One is led to conclude that the reasons for the above-average number of fatalities and injuries in the construction industry are therefore more complex than commercial pressures.
As I read the Opposition motion, it appears that they believe that the answer lies in more regulations, but that will not solve the problems. I do not believe that the mailed fist approach would help because the problems are much more deep seated than has been so far outlined.
I am also sad that the debate has not highlighted that health and safety are not just the responsibility of the Government. The motion charges the Government with this, that and any other responsibility but, although the Government have a role to play, such an approach ignores the role of companies, trade unions and employees. Alas, individual employees within the construction industry are just as guilty of lack of responsibility as some of the companies. There are good companies and bad ones, but I believe that we have more good ones than bad ones. Unfortunately, there are good and bad sectors of industry and the construction sector gives cause for great concern. It is important to stress, however, that it has been a matter of concern for many years and that that concern has spanned a number of Governments.
Health and safety should not be a political football, but the debate is in danger of making it such. Health and safely should be completely non-partisan and if one accepts that principle it leads in a more constructive direction than that proposed in the motion. Although the reasons behind the motion are of the highest integrity, the motion itself is disappointing and narrow. It over-simplifies the issue and as soon as one does that one unfortunately reaches the wrong conclusions.
We are all well aware that the Health and Safety Executive provides inspection, enforcement and advisory services. In the main, those advisory services are given free. Therefore, there is no excuse for any company to plead ignorance. In the past I have visited many companies and too many companies within the construction industry tended to plead ignorance.
We have heard a great deal about the strength of the Health and Safety Executive. I understand that there are now 99 inspectors. That level was not dictated by the Government; rather, the HSE established that that represented the right manning level. I accept that the inspectorate might be one short, but it is manned at roughly the right level. The HSE's funding for 1989–90 will be met in full and its budget will increase within the next three years. All that is in sharp contradistinction to the message I got from the Opposition Benches. I got the impression of depleted ranks within the HSE, a lack of money and all the rest of it. That is simply not true.
I have the impression that, although a number of hon. Members have referred to the need for blitzes—indeed, the word appears in the Government amendment—it is considered by some to be an irrelevance. It is far from that. The blitz that took place between April 1987 and September 1988 resulted in about 8,300 construction sites being visited which highlighted many problems and resulted in action. Therefore, we need more site visits rather than less.
There is an even more powerful weapon to solve the problem that we are discussing. Sending directors to gaol and so on may be part of the solution, although I do not think that it would work. However, the threat of the closure of unsafe sites is a more important sanction because it hits a man—or in this case a company—where it hurts, which is in the pocket. Knowing the industrial community well, I am sure that such a sanction has a strong effect. Will the Minister say how many sites have been closed and whether the Government have been considering the use of this weapon in a more aggressive way?
We must accept that, even if the number of inspections was doubled, the enforcing authority could not have inspectors everywhere at the same time. That leads me to conclude that the amendment is right. Companies have by far the bigger role to play simply because inspectors cannot be everywhere.
The problem in this industry is attitudinal. There is a high labour turnover with small sub-contracting companies. That is the classic ingredient for extreme difficulties such as those we are debating. Bearing that in mind, and curtailing many of the remarks that I would have made had the debate been longer, I will confine myself to a few suggestions.
Companies have a definite responsibility. The problem lies in the large number of small sub-contractors in the industry. If they will not tackle the problem, it must be tackled by the main contractors. In other areas, such as manufacturing, large companies use their purchasing power with those from whom they purchase to get the right quality.
It does not seem a great departure for contractors in the construction industry to get their sub-contractors together and tell them the facts of life with regard to health and safety. The essential fact—it should go ringing from the House—is that the figures of fatalities are unacceptable.
In addition, I hope that the Health and Safety Executive will continue to intensify its activities. Will the Minister give us an assurance that that will happen, because, along with the resultant enforcement actions, it is of prime importance? The other piece of the jigsaw is what the Government can do to help. I support what the Minister of State said about more regulations being needed to cover such issues as the compulsory wearing of hard hats on construction sites. That is not an irrelevancy; it can make a big contribution to reducing the fatality figures.
I applaud the Government for what they are doing and I shall be watching their efforts to ensure that they take whatever steps are possible to solve the problem. None of us wants to return to this issue in a year or two and have to speak again about this sorry state of affairs in the industry.

Dr. John Gilbert: I must at the outset declare an interest as a non-executive director of a civil engineering company. I support the motion and particularly the call on
the Government to increase inspection, improve site management and enforce tougher penalties".
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) on his campaign over many years to get this matter brought before the House. He knows far more about the industry than I shall ever know. He made a fair speech, acknowledging that responsibility for accidents lay in different places.
Some incidents are clearly management responsibilities, some are due to workers ignoring management instructions, and some are plainly accidents about which nothing can be done. For example, the provision of adequate safety clothing, and the enforcement of its wearing, the provision of railings where appropriate and the shoring up of excavations are clearly management responsibilities. But there is no way to legislate to ensure that a man handles a piece of mechanical equipment correctly. He may do it negligently or in circumstances which result in an accident.
The use that may be made of site statistics can be misleading because, as has been pointed out, some sites exist for only a day or so, or even a few hours. It would be misleading to include those in the total statistics. But that does not alter the fact that it would be good to have up to double the number of inspectors and site visits, and every responsible firm would agree with that.
No sensible firm wants a prohibition notice or prosecution. My company makes safety a formal item on the agenda for every board meeting and at every meeting we discuss a report on safety matters. In addition—at my suggestion, which my colleagues cheerfully accepted—the safety officer must make a report in person to the board at least once a year. There is great awareness that safety is, above all, a board responsibility.
The Government should consider making the appointment of a safety officer a statutory responsibility of every company in the industry, rather in the way that the appointment of a company secretary is a statutory responsibility of a company. I disagree with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) that some firms might be too small to employ a safety officer. At least one member of the management of every company, however small, should have responsibility for safety. Even if it is a small firm, he can do that along with his other duties. The fact that a firm is small should not be a let-out from having a safety officer.
Hon. Members in all parts of the House accept that the situation remains unsatisfactory, and I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) say that there should be more site visits. I did not understand how he thought that could be achieved without many more inspectors being appointed. We want more such visits and more prohibitions where necessary, but, above all, we want those visits to take place as a deterrent so that prohibitions and prosecutions are not necessary.
There will be no permanent solution to the problem, because just as there will always be traffic accidents there will always be construction accidents. There could be far fewer, and it is up to us to reduce them. The responsibility lies squarely with the Government who must play their


part. They are not doing that and their complacent amendment shows no sign of their accepting responsibility for these matters.

Mr. Simon Coombs: The subject of the debate is of great concern to all hon. Members. I shall avoid repeating what has been said with eloquence by other hon. Members. There are two ways of looking at the problem and they illustrate the difference between the Government and the Opposition. First, there is the idealistic approach. It is quite right in its way and says that every death is a tragedy, that it is preventable and should be prevented. Who among us could possibly argue with that view?
There is another view which says that it is remarkable that so few construction workers are killed every year, given the boom in construction all over the country and human nature. Little has been said about human nature, but it is the fundamental problem at the heart of the matters that we are discussing. We talk about short cuts, carelessness and over-confidence and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) said, we often talk about inexperience. We point to those things as being the causes of accidents in the construction industry.
Another difference between the two main parties in the House is that the Government look to the Health and Safety Executive and the Health and Safety Commission for guidance. The Health and Safety Executive said that by 1990 we would need 100 inspectors in the construction industry. A year before that time we have 99 inspectors in post. The Opposition propose to tell the Health and Safety Executive what to do. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said that we could have 200 inspectors now, but I suspect that if he had his way we would have many more. I say to him and to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who is not in the Chamber, that it is not a bad idea to take note of the advice and guidance of the experts that we employ. The man in Whitehall does not always know best.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West spoke about blacklisting. That is a typical red herring that comes up in almost every debate on employment. I should like to quote a real expert, the director general of the Health and Safety Executive, Mr. Rimington. When he addressed the Select Committee on Employment at the end of last year he said:
We are in fact increasing the number of inspectors in construction. Perhaps I should explain, I think it is generally known, that we did make representations to the Secretary of State, the Commission did, last year, with the result that more money was made available to us. We are building up the Factory Inspectorate from what is certainly too low a figure. Our main priorities over the next year will be to increase the amount of inspection on construction sites, and to increase the amount of inspection of small firms and contracting firms generally. As you probably know, there has been quite a mushroom growth of those. Many of them, while not wishing, I think, to defy safety provisions, prove to be unaware of some of the hazards with which they are confronted.
In the same exchange Mr. Rimington said:
Certainly, as regards the construction industry generally, there has been an enormous amount of enforcement activity over the past two or three years. The number of enforcement actions that the Factory Inspectorate has taken on construction sites have virtually trebled over the past two years.
That is the reasoned and measured voice of the expert, and I prefer it to the hysterical ravings of the hon. Member for Oldham, West. He blamed Thatcherism and said that

the amazing growth in activity in the construction industry caused the problem at the root of our debate. There has been massive growth not only in activity but also in employment, yet the hon. Gentleman berates the level of unemployment. He cannot have it both ways.
Nothing that the Government could do could be as effective as discipline and self discipline on site. Safety education, protective clothing, prohibition orders and fines are important. Perhaps when the Minister replies to the debate he will comment on the point that a maximum fine of £2,000 in a magistrates court is too low. It might with advantage be significantly increased; and the power to bring actions in a higher court should also be examined.
At the end of the day, safety comes down to one man and one job and the right and wrong way to carry it out. There is no point in saying that it is the Government's fault. It is the fault of any man who allows his life to be placed in jeopardy. We must not get into the cosy attitude of blaming it on Government. We are all individually responsible when we put ourselves at risk, whether in construction, on the roads, in the home or anywhere else. The individual's responsibility must be paramount.

Mr. Ron Leighton: I echo the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) in paying tribute to the Health and Safety Commission and complimenting it on the documents that it has supplied. The commission says that between 1981 and 1985 there were 739 deaths in the construction industry. It said that nearly all of them could have been prevented and that in 70 per cent. of the cases positive action by management could have saved lives. It clearly pins the responsibility on management. It talks about the need to plan and develop safe systems of work before the job starts. The commission talks about roof work and says:
In the vast majority of fatal accidents on roofs, management…did not exercise sufficient control to ensure that relatively simple precautions were taken.
On demolition the commission said that 67 out of 95 accidents causing death were caused by management allowing unsafe systems of work.
The Labour party has instigated this debate because there is a rising trend in accidents. Between 1981 and 1985 major injuries increased by 30 per cent. and in a 10-year period there were 1,500 deaths in the construction industry. In that same decade 500,000 injuries were sufficiently bad to keep people off work for three days. That is much worse than what happened at King's Cross or in the Clapham rail disaster. The number of deaths is much greater than the 495 killings by the IRA. During that same decade three times as many people were killed on construction sites.
In the Falklands conflict 254 British service men were killed, but there have been many more deaths in construction. We must speak out loudly and clearly and say that this is intolerable. Death and injury occur too easily and too often in the construction industry, which is one of the most dangerous industries in Britain. The worrying thing is that the post-war improvement in the figures has been halted, the trend has been reversed and the toll of death and crippling injury is increasing. That is an intolerable scandal and the House must decide to do something about it.
Why are the figures getting worse? Why is there a disaster area? Perhaps it is partly because of the changing


face of the industry. Many of today's larger companies have fewer directly employed workers than they used to have. There has been a huge increase in self-employment, what is known as the lump, and in small contractors. The Health and Safety Executive said that these small firms are constantly competing for work and often cut costs to the bone and that safety is usually one of the first casualties —if it is ever considered at all—so that, in the conflict between profits and health and safety, health and safety come last.
More than one third of all employees are now in companies with seven or fewer people, whereas in 1975 it was only one in seven. So we have myriad tiny sub-contracting firms going in and out of business. More than half the deaths occurred on sites with fewer than 10 people. Half the victims had been working for only a week or less on the site where they were killed. Those in charge of the work were considered to be wholly or partly to blame for two thirds of the deaths and to be solely responsible in over half those cases.
If we are to have a campaign that will succeed, most of these small firms will have to be brought into it. My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) knows that in the east end of London there is a great growth of construction industry at the moment. The east end is like a forest of cranes. There is an increase in work and this means great pressure to take on inadequately trained, inexperienced labour; and unless something drastic is done there will be an increase in this tide of tragedy.
What is being done about it? We have had the so-called blitz. It started in April 1987 and it was found that by law if work is to last for six weeks the health and safety authorities have to be notified. Only one third of the employers did so. That is another way of saying that two thirds broke the law. Nearly one third of the sites were controlled by agents or supervisors whose knowledge of health and safety legislation was poor or very poor. On 14 per cent. of the sites management was non-existent. Things were so bad and dangerous that on one in four sites work was stopped.
Of course, some firms were good and some were excellent and that showed that they could compete in the market place and implement proper safety measures, which disproves the argument that proper safety makes firms uncompetitive.
The other thing that was found through the blitz was that there were very few prosecutions. Why was that? The Health and Safety Executive explained that it was because of the time and effort necessary to prosecute and the fact that it did not have the necessary staff.
We must ask ourselves what we are to do about this situation. We have to have enforcement of the existing law. If there are no prosecutions, if firms know that they can break the law and cause death and injury and there will be no prosecutions, or they will just have their wrists smacked, nothing will happen. If they are prosecuted in the magistrates court, where the maximum fine is £2,000, we shall not get anywhere. We need proper enforcement. There are not enough inspectors or resources, and the Government are to blame. That is why I intervened in the Minister's speech.
The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs), who is a valuable member of the Employment Committee, referred to the health and safety evidence given to the Committee. I have here the annual report of the Health and Safety Executive 1986–87, which says:
During the six year period April 1980/86, the resources available to the Executive declined in real terms and the number of our inspectors by 213".
So under this Government real resources to the Health and Safety Executive have declined and the number of inspectors has been cut. There is also a reference in the report to a suspension of recruitment between 1980 and 1984. For four years there was a complete suspension of recruitment to the inspectorate. The Government ought to apologise for that error and that cutting of the inspectorate.
The same report says that the pressure on resources throughout the year was a matter of anxiety to the executive and it could not do its job. It explained that in the following year, 1987–88, the rates of pay for inspectors were increased, but the amount of money available to the Health and Safety Executive did not go up. Therefore, again the number of inspectors had to be cut.
The truth is—and I will give way immediately if the Minister can say that I am wrong—that the numbers of agriculture inspectors, factory inspectors and inspectors of mines and quarries are now lower than in 1986 and in 1977, 12 years ago. That is where the Government are to blame for the lack of enforcement.
They say that there are 99 inspectors in the construction industry. That is totally inadequate. There are 180,000 firms in the construction industry.
Time is very short and that is why I have truncated my remarks to let some of my colleagues speak, but I want to suggest a number of things that I think should be done.
First, there must be an increase in penalties. We have to get prosecutions brought in the Crown court and not in the magistrates court. They have to go to the magistrates court first and it is for the Health and Safety Executive to ask that they be moved up to the Crown court. When men or women leave home to go to work their families expect them to come home in the evening, and if employers are so grossly negligent that they cause the death of a worker the sentence should be imprisonment. I believe that until we get some sentences of imprisonment neither employers nor anybody else on the site will take these matters seriously.
The second step is to take up the idea of UCATT, which has asked for what it calls super-safety reps, rather similar to full-time shop stewards who would be full-time safety representatives.
Thirdly, the super-safety reps should have the right to stop a job when there is danger to life. If they had that power it would really mean something. Some people may think that that is going too far, but I remind the House that in the Norwegian sector of the North sea the Norwegian trade union safety representives have that right, although they hardly ever use it because the management takes them seriously and there is proper safety treatment. There should be a right to stop the job where necessary to protect life.
Lastly, because we are dealing with an emergency and need extra safety representatives and inspectors quickly, the Government should take up the visionary offer by the general secretary of UCATT to make available his 120 union officials to act as inspectors. These are people with a lifetime of experience of the industry who know what


they are talking about. They would work under the supervision of the Health and Safety Executive. That would be a way of doubling the inspectorate immediately to get some action on something which all hon. Members must regard as a national emergency.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: I agree with hon. Members on both sides of the House that safety in the workplace is too important to be dealt with on the basis of ideological prejudice. Indeed, anyone who recognises the nature of the building industry will know how deep-seated and difficult some of the problems are. It is a diffuse industry which works in many different locations. As a result, it is small wonder that the Health and Safety Executive found in its survey that 65 per cent. of firms did not identify work that was likely to go on for more than six weeks.
It is inherently a risky industry. Risk is compounded by latitude in the industry, as my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) mentioned. It was significant that the report of the Health and Safety Executive, referring to the introduction of helmets to improve safety, said:
Reactions range from unthinking abuse to total apathy, typifying an all too common lack of concern for safety measures.
Therefore, health and safety problems in the industry remain deep-seated. It is wrong to lash out at various so-called contributory factors, such as the lump system or what the motion calls "relentless commercial pressures". That is simplistic.
The evidence provided by the Health and Safety Executive does not support the theory that the irresponsible behaviour and sloppiness that lead to accidents are necessarily increased at times of commercial upsurge. For instance, as a proportion of the numbers in the industry there was little difference in the number of fatalities in 1981, when the industry was depressed, and 1986–87, when it was booming. The survey on the blitz between April 1987 and September 1988 on the 2,000 prohibitions issued by the Health and Safety Executive shows that, while prohibitions were imposed on 51 out of 55 sites in Glasgow, which was booming at that time, in Southampton, where market conditions were equally booming. there were only five prohibitions out of 134 sites.
Most of all, the Labour party motion fails to recognise, as Her Majesty's chief inspector of safety recognises, that it is precisely those companies with the most strict safety rules and the most strict system of monitoring and training their work forces on safety that are the most successful and profitable. As the chief inspector said:
A well-planned contract which identifies safety requirements will be more efficiently run, more productive and therefore more profitable.
The Government are right to try to set down an effective framework within which, through voluntary co-operation, employers, employees and regulators within the industry can make an improvement in safety.
That is not to say that safety is not a matter of concern. There has been reference in the debate to an article in the Financial Times which said that only 49 per cent. of sites with more than 50 employees visited by the Health and Safety Executive had prohibition notices; that the overall standards of health and safety were poor; and that only one third of managers on sites had an adequate grasp of safety procedures. It is worrying that prosecutions have not led to a greater change in attitudes in the industry.
While I welcome the approach by the Government to increase safety supervision in smaller companies, to improve site notification procedure and to allow for better management and co-ordination on multi-contractor sites, I think that there is a strong case for stricter penalties for people who break the law. Equally, there is a strong case for the promotion of model contracts which could be put forward by the Building Employers Confederation, the National House-Building Council and others. Those contracts should show exactly what good safety procedures involve.
In the long run, attitudes will be improved only through training. It was significant that Brian Hewitt, the National House-Building Council president, welcomed the Government review of training recently when he said that it
provides the house-building industry with the first opportunity for over 20 years to make a meaningful impact on training policy.
There will be 60,000 entrants a year into the building industry over the next few years and a massive need for retraining. Now that the National Council for Vocational Qualifications has recognised the CITB as a lead industrial body, it is important that it uses competence procedures for qualifications in a modular form, if necessary, including health and safety aspects so as to improve significantly the amount of training that is done within the industry on health and safety.
It is a waste of time having well-trained operatives within an industry unless the public have confidence in the way that industry is policed. Although statutory regulations for every type of building work contractor would be unrealistic and undesirable, there is a strong case for statutory self-regulation of the industry, which could take place either through the National House-Building Council or the Building Employers Confederation for companies, depending on the kind of work that they are doing, its complexity and its scope.
A house builder, if he has satisfied criteria of confidence and experience and has provided adequate insurance indemnity and evidence that he has understood safety procedures, would be made responsible on the site on which he worked, irrespective of whether he was sub-contracting, employing lump labour or directly employing labour, for safety on that site. It is curious that, while there is a seven-year training period for architects and a four-year training period for house planners, there is no specific and necessary training period for house builders. If we did what I propose, the reputation of the industry would be increased, the consumers' confidence would be restored, and the safety of employees in the industry would be immeasurably improved.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Piper Alpha, King's Cross and Zeebrugge were all dreadful disasters involving huge loss of life and terrible injuries. Shock and horror were rammed into the lives of the families affected. Every year there is a disaster of similar magnitude in the construction industry, but the disaster is diffused. It is not concentrated but hidden, and it is not exposed in the media in the same way as the terrible disasters to which I have already referred.
My colleagues have referred to "Blackspot Construction" produced by the Health and Safety Executive in June 1988. That document recorded that 739


people were killed in construction accidents between 1981 and 1985—an average of 147 deaths per year. That is twice the rate for agriculture and five times the rate for manufacturing industry. Since 1985, it has climbed to 160 deaths per year. A construction worker is killed or seriously injured on site every hour of every working day and a less serious injury occurs once every couple of minutes. Deaths caused by long-term diseases and injuries kill 4,000 people per year. That is carnage—the word used by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher)—and carnage on a horrific scale. It is a battlefield on which building workers are the cannon fodder for the employers' profit system.
Not all the people on a building site face the same risks. The chances of a site manager or agent dying of lung cancer before reaching retirement age are half that for the general population. By contrast, according to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys decennial occupational mortality supplement 1979–80 and 1982–83, a plasterer runs three times the risk of disease as his boss. The risk of disease extends to families living in buildings under construction, repair or renovation, as recent evidence from Germany has shown from the use of timber treatment solutions containing pentachlorophenol and lindane. Fifty thousand people in this country belong to the Association of Victims of Wood Preservatives and are preparing to sue United Kingdom companies such as Rentokil and Cuprinol which distribute products which can allegedly cause leukemia, cancer and blood disorders including aplastic anaemia.
My time on the shop floor during the 1970s was littered with anecdotal stories of how we hardly ever contributed to retirement do's for chippies or welders as they never lived long enough to retire because they worked with similarly dangerous substances. The common link between Piper Alpha, King's Cross, Zeebrugge and the construction accidents and illnesses which we have discussed this evening is that they are all preventable. All the deaths are the result of callous disregard by employers for workers' safety. It does not matter whether the employers be Occidental, British Rail, Townsend Thoresen, John Laing, Tarmac, Rentokil or Cuprinol.
Whether those deaths are preventable is not, in a sense, in question tonight. The Opposition have stated that they are, as has the HSE in its five-yearly report which stated:
Ninety per cent. of construction fatalities could have been prevented.
Even the Prime Minister's amendment acknowledges that. Clearly the Government have been on the defensive tonight. The HSE continued:
In 70 per cent. of cases, positive action by management could have saved lives.
Why is that action not forthcoming? That question should be the crux of this debate. That is what I think and what I want to express in these two or three minutes after waiting many months to make a major contribution in this hallowed hall of the House of Commons. That question should be the crux of the debate in the few minutes that remain.
Action is not forthcoming because of the £12 billion worth of contracts in London and the south-east alone. Contractors have been told to complete contracts on time, regardless of how many corners they cut. The most infamous statement that I have heard in six years in this

palace of varieties is "a man a mile" in relation to the building of the Channel tunnel. It is estimated that the Chunnel will lead to 20 deaths in 20 miles. That is the impact on the work carried out. Deaths are being built into the budget. That is an obscenity. There is no other word for it. It is obscene that the construction industry's profits should be put before the lives of those who create that wealth.
The Government and the Prime Minister's all pervading and perverse philosophy of "get rich quick and ignore the lives of the workers" underpins the philosophy of the employers. In the past 10 years, 1,500 people have died in construction accidents. According to the Health and Safety Executive, the number of fatal and major injuries has risen by 66 per cent. in the past seven years. In the two years 1986 and 1987, six of the top building firms in Britain—Beazer, Bovis, Laing, Tarmac, Wimpey and Trafalgar House—made £836 million profit. In the past three years, Laing, McAlpine, Balfour Beatty, Tarmac and Wimpey have all been found guilty of health and safety offences. The fines have been between £500 and £2,000. When one compares that with Jeffrey Archer's £500,000 and Elton John's £1 million—when one sets the reputations of those individuals against the lives of construction workers—how do the scales balance?
From January 1983 to March 1987, the average fine on 2,343 firms was £361—the same as the average fine for not paying the fare on London Transport. That is how much the lives of workers in the construction industry are considered. The Government take no serious account of that point, and their attitude is understandable when one notes that in 1987 Wimpey, Bovis, Tarmac, Trafalgar House and Costain each gave between £25,000 and £37,000 to the Tory party to keep it sweet. Amey Roadstone, Costain, Gleeson, McAlpine, Marples, Taylor Woodrow, Wimpey and Mowlem also all subscribe to the Economic League which blacklists any shop steward who sticks his head above the parapet and complains about unsafe working conditions.
The Labour Government gave us the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, but that is no more than a bit of paper unless it has teeth and stewards have the confidence to use it. The Health and Safety Executive is staffed by well-intentioned individuals, but it is inadequate. The Minister said earlier that this was a red herring, but the Government employ six times as many dole snoopers in London as factory inspectors. Last year, 4,133 sites known to inspectors in London had 12 inspectors to cover them. They could not get to each of them once a year if they tried, so although there were 36 deaths in London last year and 413 major injuries there were only 18 prosecutions and no employer was gaoled—so much for the law and order party!
The workers have had enough. A debate like this will not satisfy the thousands of workers who are sick to the back teeth of burying their mates after accidents. Comrades have spoken of it. Building workers, first in London and now in the midlands, have formed the construction safety campaign. They are asking for a lot of things—but the first and most important is that the number of deaths and injuries of construction workers in Britain should become a major political issue. Tonight we have made a start on that. There are a few more miles to go down that road. We shall have lobbies and meetings and, no doubt, some industrial action along the way as well. We shall do what we have started to do in Coventry,


where we are banning contractors when scaffolding and other inadequate working practices on building sites are creating risks for workers. We shall put that proposal to every Labour council.
Our experience and that of the Health and Safety Executive is that the Government do not allow the HSE the resources to operate properly. The debate may be a little irritant to those Tory Members who have turned up, but what of the wives and the bairns of those who have died in the past 10 years? There are about 1·5 million workers in the industry, and in the past 10 years 1,500 have been killed and 40,000 have died from bronchitis, cancer and other diseases caused by dust and unhealthy working conditions. The number injured runs into millions.
Our motion puts the blame where it lies. The chilling report of the Health and Safety Executive shows that 90 per cent. of fatalities in the construction industry are preventable—not "avoidable", as the Minister said. He should look in a dictionary and see the difference between the two. If employers—those with the money—really meant to save the lives of their workers, they could do so.
There is a solution to the problem. It lies in the motion, in the suggestion of the Health and Safety Executive, and in the work of the construction safety campaign. Employers do not care a damn about safety. They care only about profit. The only way that we shall stop their lust for profit and the killing of workers in the construction industry is when those employers no longer own and control it—when workers in the building industry and the working class generally own, control, plan and manage the construction industry. Then we shall build houses without the death of workers being the price that is paid.

Mr. Gavin Strang: It is a measure of the importance that we attach to the subject that not all right hon. and hon. Members who wished to speak in the debate have been able to participate.
There can be no doubt about the high level of accidents in the construction industry, and there can be no doubt about the need for effective action by all concerned to improve health and safety standards. The construction industry is one of the most dangerous in the country. The Health and Safety Executive's 1987–88 report shows that the number of employees who suffered fatal injuries in all industries totalled 340 and that no fewer than 100 of them were in construction, compared with 96 in all manufacturing industries. The figures in respect of the self-employed and non-employed are even more striking. The number for all industries is 525, of which 157 are accounted for by construction and 100 by manufacturing.
The figure of 157 deaths in construction for 1987–88 is the highest since 1981. I refer also to the figures for reported accidents per 100,000 employees, the latest of which were published in February with the Employment Gazette supplement, from which one can see that accident rates in construction are among the highest of all the industries included. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) made it clear that, along with all those accidents, there are deaths arising from occupational disease such as asbestosis and bronchitis. The chairman of the Health and Safety Commission, Dr. John Cullen, stated that more people die from contact with dangerous substances and from noise on construction sites than from injuries.
The Government have a responsibility, and the Minister made great play of the fact that recently there has been an increase in the number of factory inspectors dealing with the construction industry. However, that increase is against the background of a progressive decline in the number of Health and Safety Executive staff and of factory and agricultural inspectors. There has been a decline in qualified and experienced factory inspectors, and all the increases are accounted for by recent new recruits. It is arguable that the additional number of construction inspectors will be less capable of doing the job than would be the case were there a more balanced complement, with the more experienced and qualified inspectors who have left to take other jobs.
That decline in the executive, for which the Government have been responsible over 10 years, has occurred while the Government have piled additional responsibility upon responsibility on the commission and the executive. I refer to the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1984, responsibility for gas safety including domestic installations, the Road Traffic (Carriage of Dangerous Substances in Packages etc.) Regulations 1986, and the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988, which will shortly come into operation. All those are increased responsibilities and yet, at the same time, year in, year out, there has been a decline in the resources available to the Health and Safety Executive. We welcome the belated improvement, but it is totally inadequate—infinitesimal against what is needed to restore the position. We need a commitment from the Government to increase the amount available to the Health and Safety Executive by a substantial amount each year in order to begin to overcome the problems.
Against that background of a shortage of factory inspectors, it was probably right to have the much publicised blitz to which the hon. Members referred. However, when a blitz takes place, the people inspecting the sites are unable to do their normal jobs. Inspectors are reallocated to the work instead of carrying out the jobs they should be doing. As I am sure Ministers recognise, an important role of the inspectors is advisory and educational.
The Government have responsibilities for health and safety in our construction industry. We need a massive increase in the number of inspectors and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said, there is a great need for longer sentences for offenders. Top managers should go to gaol if they are responsible for inadequate health and safety standards that lead to death and serious injury on construction sites.
Reference has been made to the excellent study, "Blackspot Construction", carried out by the Health and Safety Executive. That points out quite clearly time and again that responsibility for these injuries and deaths lies with the site management, and inadequate supervision and planning of the work places.
It should be made absolutely clear that responsibility lies in the work place with the workers themselves, in addition to the inspectorate. We deplore the fact that, year in, year out, the Government have enacted legislation to undermine and weaken the trade union movement, which has, and should play, a key role in health and safety in the workplace, particularly on construction sites. It is no use


the Government talking about the role of the workers and the trade unions and, at the same time, constantly introducing legislation to weaken and undermine them.
The Government have put private profit before public service and preferred tax cuts to public investment on improved services. The Government have undermined the trade union movement at every opportunity. We are not suggesting that the Government are indifferent to death and injury on building sites, but the Government have not given health and safety in the construction industry the priority that they deserve. That is why we shall be voting for the motion.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): The inevitable constraints of time mean that I shall not be able to do justice to the powerful contributions made by a number of hon. Members. Without the two inevitable exceptions, the contributions made were extremely helpful, and of the sort that we expect to hear.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State called for a debate which went above party and which would bring about some positive suggestions for tackling a very real problem and give a clear message to the industry that it must do better. For the most part, that has been the case and I shall certainly look at Hansard to note the points that have been made, and reply to any specific points as necessary.
I shall comment shortly upon some of the points that have been made in the debate, but I first want to emphasise two points which are central to the issue of construction safety. First, far too many people are killed while working on sites—hon. Members from both sides of the House have rightly condemned that carnage. Secondly, it is wholly inexcusable because so many—90 per cent. of the deaths—are obviously preventable.
Yes, construction sites may be inherently dangerous, with large machines, heavy weights and heights, but time and again inspectors report that the true cause of an accident was ignorance, complacency or lack of thought about basic and simple precautions. It is utterly unacceptable that some of those engaged in the construction industry have so little regard for human life and the well-being of their fellow citizens.
However, there is another reason why this record is so appalling. It concerns an area where the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and the Opposition motion have chosen to try to make cheap political capital, and about which they are mistaken. They have charged the Government with some form of commercial interest in fostering poor safety conditions, but the message that we are trying to get across to industry is that there is every commercial reason to ensure that firms have the highest safety standards. Accidents not only cause pain and suffering but incur extremely high costs—£2 billion per annum—a high proportion of which fall on the construction industry. Young people will soon be in short supply, and the industry's image will do it no good whatever in a difficult recruitment market.
When inspectors visit sites they find that there is a direct correlation between firms with good safety standards and those that are successful. Those that have poor standards

often go bust. Mistakenly, their managers think that by cutting corners they can make economies. Such short-sighted attitudes invariably backfire, and the same lackadaisical attitude to running their business leads to economic ruin. A good manager knows that he must ensure that his company performs well in all sectors and that it is counterproductive to cheat on safety.
In a powerful contribution, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said that safety is a question of "your health or their wealth." He could not be more wrong. There is nothing contradictory or inimical between profits and safety; the two must go hand in hand.
Mention was made of accident rates, and inevitably the hon. Member for Oldham, West interpreted them in a particular way. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that we do not understand the message. There were 157 fatalities last year and 3,600 major injuries—too many. Like it or not, the hon. Gentleman will have to face up to the fact that the prevention of accidents lies not with the Government but with those who work on sites and primarily, though not exclusively, with employers.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West has a way of presenting figures. I shall make a point from which I take no comfort—it is the sort of thing in which the hon. Gentleman wants to indulge—about the number of fatalities in the construction industry. There were 139 deaths in the boom period of 1986–87 and 157 in 1987–88. Those figures are well below the rates of the last sustained boom in construction. In 1974, there were 166 deaths and in 1975 there were 182. If I adopted the simplistic nonsense of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, I could say, "That is OK. We are doing better and deaths were higher under a Labour Government." I derive no comfort from that, but that is the way in which the hon. Gentleman tried to present the argument. It is not good enough to come to the House with pretensions of office when the best that one can do is to try to attribute accident figures to political opponents. Even by the standards of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, that will not work.
We understand that the Opposition take a dirigiste view of the courts, but the Government should not lecture courts on how to decide cases. It is the Government's job to ensure that penalties are available for courts to use. If magistrates decide that a case is serious enough to commit to the Crown court, that is where it goes. Companies do not take fines of £750,000 lightly. Such fines make a substantial deficit in a company's accounts. It is about time that people such as the hon. Member for Oldham, West, who pretend to take an interest in these matters, understood that.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State said that the construction industry's fatality record was quite appalling. The misery, desolation and grief that underlie the figures for many families is made more unbearably acute by the fact that many of the accidents were avoidable. When others rise to the occasion, the hon. Member for Oldham, West is more likely to sink to it. Surely this is an issue in which even he could have risen above his usual practice of using and abusing any issue for cheap political points. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) at least did his best to reflect that concern.
What we need to know from the Opposition tonight, as the debate reaches its conclusion, is which of their two spokesmen more accurately reflects Opposition views. Is it an attempt at common sense or cheap sensationalism; positive action or political posturing; heartfelt concern or


the usual Oldham claptrap? In a few moments' time we will know the answer to that, but even if students of Labour's past form are unlikely to be disappointed, we could all hope that, just this once, they might conceivably have got it wrong.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 212, Noes 265.

Division No. 154]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Fatchett, Derek


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Faulds, Andrew


Allen, Graham
Fearn, Ronald


Alton, David
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Anderson, Donald
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Armstrong, Hilary
Flannery, Martin


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Flynn, Paul


Ashton, Joe
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Foster, Derek


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Fraser, John


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Fyfe, Maria


Barron, Kevin
Galbraith, Sam


Battle, John
Galloway, George


Beckett, Margaret
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Beith, A. J.
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
George, Bruce


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bermingham, Gerald
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bidwell, Sydney
Gordon, Mildred


Blair, Tony
Gould, Bryan


Blunkett, David
Graham, Thomas


Boateng, Paul
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bradley, Keith
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Grocott, Bruce


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Buchan, Norman
Heffer, Eric S.


Buckley, George J.
Henderson, Doug


Caborn, Richard
Hinchliffe, David


Callaghan, Jim
Holland, Stuart


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Home Robertson, John


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Howells, Geraint


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Hoyle, Doug


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Clay, Bob
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clelland, David
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Illsley, Eric


Corbett, Robin
Ingram, Adam


Corbyn, Jeremy
Janner, Greville


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cox, Tom
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Crowther, Stan
Kennedy, Charles


Cryer, Bob
Kilfedder, James


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kirkwood, Archy


Cunningham, Dr John
Lambie, David


Dalyell, Tam
Lamond, James


Darling, Alistair
Leadbitter, Ted


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Leighton, Ron


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Lewis, Terry


Dewar, Donald
Litherland, Robert


Dixon, Don
Livingstone, Ken


Dobson, Frank
Livsey, Richard


Doran, Frank
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Douglas, Dick
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Duffy, A. E. P.
Loyden, Eddie


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McAllion, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
McAvoy, Thomas


Eadie, Alexander
Macdonald, Calum A.


Eastham, Ken
McFall, John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
McKelvey, William


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
McLeish, Henry





McWilliam, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Madden, Max
Rowlands, Ted


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Ruddock, Joan


Marek, Dr John
Sedgemore, Brian


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sheerman, Barry


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Martlew, Eric
Short, Clare


Maxton, John
Skinner, Dennis


Meacher, Michael
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Meale, Alan
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Snape, Peter


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Soley, Clive


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Steel, Rt Hon David


Morgan, Rhodri
Steinberg, Gerry


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Stott, Roger


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Strang, Gavin


Mullin, Chris
Straw, Jack


Murphy, Paul
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Nellist, Dave
Turner, Dennis


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Vaz, Keith


O'Brien, William
Wall, Pat


O'Neill, Martin
Wallace, James


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Walley, Joan


Parry, Robert
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Patchett, Terry
Wareing, Robert N.


Pendry, Tom
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Pike, Peter L.
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Prescott, John
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Primarolo, Dawn
Wilson, Brian


Quin, Ms Joyce
Winnick, David


Radice, Giles
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Randall, Stuart
Worthington, Tony


Redmond, Martin
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn



Robertson, George
Tellers for the Ayes:


Robinson, Geoffrey
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mrs. Llin Golding.


Rogers, Allan



Rooker, Jeff





NOES


Adley, Robert
Browne, John (Winchester)


Aitken, Jonathan
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Alexander, Richard
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Buck, Sir Antony


Amess, David
Burns, Simon


Amos, Alan
Burt, Alistair


Arbuthnot, James
Butcher, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Butterfill, John


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Ashby, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Aspinwall, Jack
Carrington, Matthew


Atkins, Robert
Carttiss, Michael


Atkinson, David
Chapman, Sydney


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Chope, Christopher


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Churchill, Mr


Batiste, Spencer
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Bellingham, Henry
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bendall, Vivian
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Colvin, Michael


Benyon, W.
Conway, Derek


Bevan, David Gilroy
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Cope, Rt Hon John


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Couchman, James


Body, Sir Richard
Cran, James


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Critchley, Julian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Boswell, Tim
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bottomley, Peter
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Day, Stephen


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Devlin, Tim


Bowis, John
Dicks, Terry


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Dorrell, Stephen


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brazier, Julian
Dover, Den


Bright, Graham
Dunn, Bob


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Emery, Sir Peter






Evennett, David
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Fallon, Michael
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Favell, Tony
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Fookes, Dame Janet
Irvine, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Irving, Charles


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Jack, Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Jackson, Robert


Fox, Sir Marcus
Janman, Tim


Franks, Cecil
Jessel, Toby


Freeman, Roger
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


French, Douglas
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Fry, Peter
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Gale, Roger
Key, Robert


Gardiner, George
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Gill, Christopher
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Knox, David


Glyn, Dr Alan
Lang, Ian


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Lawrence, Ivan


Goodlad, Alastair
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Lightbown, David


Gorst, John
Lord, Michael


Gow, Ian
Maclean, David


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Maude, Hon Francis


Gregory, Conal
Miller, Sir Hal


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Moate, Roger


Grist, Ian
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Ground, Patrick
Moore, Rt Hon John


Grylls, Michael
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hague, William
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Moss, Malcolm


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hampson, Dr Keith
Neale, Gerrard


Hanley, Jeremy
Needham, Richard


Hannam, John
Neubert, Michael


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Nicholls, Patrick


Harris, David
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hawkins, Christopher
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hayes, Jerry
Norris, Steve


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hayward, Robert
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Paice, James


Heddle, John
Patnick, Irvine


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Hill, James
Pawsey, James


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hordern, Sir Peter
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howard, Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)





Powell, William (Corby)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Price, Sir David
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Raffan, Keith
Temple-Morris, Peter


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Redwood, John
Thurnham, Peter


Rhodes James, Robert
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Riddick, Graham
Tracey, Richard


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Tredinnick, David


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Trippier, David


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Roe, Mrs Marion
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rost, Peter
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Rowe, Andrew
Waldegrave, Hon William


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Walden, George


Sayeed, Jonathan
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Waller, Gary


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Ward, John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Warren, Kenneth


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Watts, John


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wells, Bowen


Shersby, Michael
Wheeler, John


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Widdecombe, Ann


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wiggin, Jerry


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wilkinson, John


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Wilshire, David


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Squire, Robin
Winterton, Nicholas


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wolfson, Mark


Steen, Anthony
Wood, Timothy


Stern, Michael
Woodcock, Mike


Stevens, Lewis
Yeo, Tim


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stradling Thomas, Sir John



Sumberg, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Summerson, Hugo
Mr. Tony Durant and Mr. Tom Sackville.


Tapsell, Sir Peter



Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, deploring the high accident rate on construction sites and noting that 90 per cent. of construction accidents are preventable, recognises that the prime responsibility for safety lies with employers and others on site; acknowledges the vigorous action which the Health and Safety Commission and Executive have taken through enforcement blitzes and publicity campaigns on construction safety; and welcomes the increased provision which the Government has made available to the Health and Safety Executive thereby enabling the Executive to increase the number of inspectors employed on construction work.

European Community (Weights and Measures)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Francis Maude): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4102/89 on units of measurement; and welcomes the proposals as providing adequate transitional periods to enable businesses and consumers to adapt and become used to the new measurements.
In 1965 the then Government announced their support to encourage the adoption of metric units as the primary system for weights and measures in the United Kingdom. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are not remaining for this debate please leave quietly?

Mr. Maude: That was a decision taken for purely domestic reasons, in response to urging by the CBI and others; it had nothing to do then with possible membership of the European Community. In 1971 the then member states of the Community adopted a directive which established the sole use of the metric system throughout the Community. When the United Kingdom and Ireland acceded to the Community the Government accepted that eventually the metric system should be the only system to be used.
In consequence, a White Paper on metrication was published in 1972. It stated that all practicable progress towards the full use of the metric system should be made within the next few years, in the interests of economic prosperity. This led to the education system moving to the use of metric units in 1974. As a result, 11 million children since then have been taught only in the metric system.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: I am interested to hear that the Government now take orders from the CBI. If the situation is as my hon. Friend says, I wonder whether he can tell us why abolition of the Metrication Board was one of the Government's first acts on being elected in 1979.

Mr. Maude: In the hubbub my hon. Friend may not have heard that I was referring to the Government in 1965 taking steps in response to urging by the CBI. I am now dealing with steps taken by the Government in 1972 and 1974. My hon. Friend will realise that different considerations may have applied then.
In the late 1970s, discussion began, under the last Government, on proposals for a new directive. The directive was eventually adopted in late 1979, having been modified by the present Government to allow the yard to continue to be used. In its final form, the directive continued to authorise the use of the remaining imperial units in the United Kingdom and Ireland until a date to be fixed by those member states. However, the directive provided that there should be a further directive, to be agreed not later than the end of the 1989, which would set a final date by which the United Kingdom and Ireland should end the use of imperial units. The proposals we are discussing are intended to meet that commitment. They have been brought forward as a result of a binding commitment entered into by the Government, with bipartisan support, in 1979.
Following the Single European Act, the directive falls to be decided under article 100A by qualified majority, and the United Kingdom and Ireland alone do not form a blocking minority.
Let us now consider the detail of the commission's proposals. The first proposal covers the mile, yard, foot and inch for road transport purposes, the pint for dispensing draught beer and cider, the pint for milk in returnable bottles, and the acre.
We and Ireland will be able to continue to authorise those units for these purposes for as long as we wish, without any need for a further EC decision. Therefore, the mile, the pint in the pub, the doorstep pint of milk and the acre will be preserved.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Did my hon. Friend say
as long as we wish
or will there be a termination date of 1999?

Mr. Maude: There is no termination date and it will be for the member states concerned to set a termination dale if and when they wish.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: The Minister said that the directive will be determined under article 100A. The Select Committee on European Legislation said in its report:
It appears to the Committee, in the light of the Department's response to the second point"—
it was about article 100A—
that there is no impediment to the Commission, if the present proposal is adopted by the Council, subsequently submitting a further proposal, under Article 100A, to fix the date for ending".
That means the use of this particular group of measures could be ended under article 100A.

Mr. Maude: There is nothing to prevent the Commission from making further proposals about anything which lies within its competence to do. In the same way, there is nothing to stop anyone making a legislative proposal in this House. However, we are discussing the final step along the road. The Commission has accepted the concerns expressed by our Government and the proposals reflect those concerns. Fears that there will suddenly be another tranche of proposals are misguided.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Surely it means that the derogation could be ended unilaterally without consultation with us and without our consent.

Mr. Maude: For the derogation to be ended would require the Commission to make a proposal which would have to be agreed by a qualified majority. That would have to be negotiated in the usual way and, as with this proposal, the United Kingdom and Ireland would not, alone, have a blocking minority. There is no reason to suppose——

Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is not for ever then?

Mr. Maude: Nothing is for ever, as the hon. Gentleman knows. There is no reason to suppose, however, that the Commission has any desire to introduce further measures.

Mr. David Blunkett: I initiated the early-day motion on this issue and the Minister will know that I should be pleased to hear an unequivocal answer from him about the requirement that a date be


eventually set. That is the issue tonight. It is not whether there will be a delay in having to fix a date to do away with the pint and the mile but whether, eventually, a date will be set to which a British Goverment, now or in the future, will have to adhere. Therefore, the evil day has been put off, but it has not been put aside.

Mr. Maude: The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), who is sitting next to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), is familiar with the 1979 directive. It is framed in such a way that this proposal must provide the dates to be set and the only legal means which enables this country to have the final say on when or whether the units are discontinued is the form in which the proposal is expressed. In practical terms, it enables this country to have the last say on whether the units are retained. It has not been easy to find a form of words within the constraints of the last directive that allows that position to come about. It has been achieved, however, and I must now seek to persuade other member states of the Community that it is an acceptable compromise which should be supported.
The second proposal covers the fathom, the therm, the pint and the fluid ounce for returnable beer, cider and soft drink bottles, and the pound and ounce for goods weighed out for or by the consumer. We would be able to continue to authorise these units for these purposes until the end of the century.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Given that weighed-out loose goods, weighed out from bulk in front of the consumer, are not items which are traded across the Community, what possible reason can there be to require a small shopkeeper to refuse to serve a consumer 5 lb of potatoes or 1 lb of peas from bulk goods? What will happen to the shopkeeper or consumer if, after the set date, the customer asks for, and the shopkeeper serves, 5 lb of potatoes?

Mr. Maude: Under the present weights and measures legislation, which has been in existence, subject to amendment from time to time, for a long time, it is, and has been for many years, a criminal offence to sell goods in measures which are not authorised under the legislation. The consequence of this directive would be that at the appropriate time—which, if this proposal remains in the directive, would not need to be until the end of the century—we would have to amend our domestic legislation according to these proposals.

Mr. Beith: What is the answer to my question?

Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware of the fact that it is possible for the trading standards authorities to prosecute people now who sell goods in quantities and units which are not authorised under the legislation. There is nothing novel about that. [Interruption.] Amendments have been made continually to the list of such authorised units over many years.

Mr. Beith: Is the Minister seriously saying that he envisages that weights and measures inspectors will prosecute little old ladies for buying 5 lb of loose potatoes after 1999?

Mr. Maude: It would not be a criminal offence for the customer to buy goods in those circumstances. It would

be, as it is now, a criminal offence for a trader to sell goods in units which are not authorised, and there is nothing novel about that. The hon. Gentleman should know that. If he is asking whether trading standards officers will do it, my answer is that it will be a matter for those officers. But I should be surprised if, on the day after these measures come into operation, trading standards officers will be stamping around the streets trying to find people selling goods in pounds and ounces. If the hon. Gentleman believes that is a possibility, he has a lesser view than I do of the enforcement officers.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I asked my hon. Friend, in effect, if I was right in believing that what is proposed was fixed until 31 December 1999 and I understood him to say that there was no termination date. Technically that is true. But he went on to say that the pint and the mile could be used until the end of the century. That was precisely the point I questioned him on.

Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend asked me specifically about the pint for dispensing draught beer and cider and the mile. That was the first proposal I outlined and the answer I gave her was correct. There is no requirement for a termination date to be set. I am now dealing with the second proposal in the draft directive which covers the pint for other purposes—for returnable beer, cider and soft drink bottles—and it will remain possible for the United Kingdom and Ireland to authorise those units until the end of the century. I hope that that makes it clear to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Blunkett: To enable me to sleep easy in my bed, may I ask the Minister to explain into which category will fall the best service we in this country enjoy, the service that is most reliable and which we take for granted—the delivery of our pint of milk?

Mr. Maude: The pint of milk delivered to the doorstep falls into the first category. It will remain with this country to set an authorisation date, if and when we decide to do that.
The third proposal covers all the other remaining imperial units set out in chapter three of the 1979 directive. Those could continue to be authorised until the beginning of 1995. Special provisions for the troy ounce for bullion dealing would be made which recognise the international status of that unit. The proposals would also allow imperial units to continue to be used as supplementary indications to the marking in metric units until the end of the century. That would allow dual marking, which would enable us to provide a transitional period for consumers to become fully familiar with those metric units that will be used.

Mr. James Wallace: I have been reflecting on what the Minister said to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). Does he mean that dairies that deliver milk to the doorstep and also supply supermarkets will have to have different sizes of bottles after 1999 for each type of delivery? Will it be possible for supermarkets to continue to sell pints of milk?

Mr. Maude: It will be up to dairies to decide what to do. It is already possible for dairies to supply milk in metric units and some do so. It will remain open to dairies to choose which unit to use for doorstep deliveries. The permanent derogation, which is what it amounts to, would


apply only to milk being delivered in returnable containers. It would be possible for milk to be sold in supermarkets in returnable containers in the same units in which it is delivered to the doorstep.

Mr. Skinner: Will we be able to buy these things at Harrods?
I have not finished; that was just an introduction. Is there not something sick about the Common Market? Bureaucrats who are well paid with British taxpayers' money have spent countless hours on this. Every family in Britain pays £16 a week to prop up this unmitigated disaster of a Common Market. The Minister is pouring out a load of gobbledegook based on trying to regulate milk bottles and stop old ladies buying loose tatties. What a state we have got into. The Minister should take it back to the Common Market and tell them to get stuffed.

Mr. Maude: As always, the hon. Gentleman is full of splendid advice. He should have put those comments to his hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) in 1978–79. Perhaps he did. The directive is the result of a legal obligation and arises from the directive negotiated by the last Labour Government and agreed with modifications and further safeguards by the present Government. It places on the Community an obligation to produce a further directive and agree it by the end of the year.

Mr. John Fraser: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) did raise the matter with me, but I am afraid that he remains a convinced imperialist.

Mr. Maude: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) clearly failed to persuade the hon. Member for Norwood at that time.
We have consulted over 700 interested groups, from industry, trade, enforcement authorities and consumer bodies. Some of those consulted, including the National Consumer Council and the National Federation of Consumer Groups, have urged that the interests of consumers would be better served by the completion of metrication by the end of 1992 with no derogations at all. I cannot agree with that, because the Commission's proposals would allow such further changes as are necessary to be undertaken in a cautious and considered way, with the minimum disruption to consumers or industry. It would allow to continue to be used units for which the public have great affection and in respect of which it cannot be seriously argued that they constitute barriers to trade.
In respect of those units where such an argument does exist, the proposals allow us to move sensibly and without undue haste. I should stress that these proposals affect the use of imperial units only for the purposes of trade.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I missed what he said when he was talking about the consultation exercise. In the accompanying documents there is mention of a very disappointing response. In what respect was the response disappointing? How many of the 700 groups that were asked to comment were in favour of what the Commission is suggesting?

Mr. Maude: There were two responses which were hostile to the spirit of further metrication, a number which were neutral and some, to which I have just referred, which

urged that we should move more quickly. I do not believe that those representations reflect a widespread view and I do not believe that we should move more quickly than these proposals allow.

Mr. Kennedy: On a further factual point, given that there were two that were hostile, a few that were non-committal and several that said something else, what were the total number of responses from the 700 that were circulated?

Mr. Maude: I can probably find how many responses there were. The consultation, which was widespread, did not elicit very strong views in any direction. The volume of correspondence which the proposals generated was not great and it seems to me that this is not an issue on which feelings are as deep as they were some time ago. Metrication has been growing organically. More and more goods are being sold and bought in metric units and as a result people are now very much more familiar with the use of these units.

Mr. John Garrett: Something just dawned on me, to my mounting horror. We shall not be expected to give litres of blood in future, shall we?

Mr. Maude: I did not catch the hon. Gentleman's question, but I suspect it was not serious.
I was saying that these measures apply only to purposes of trade and not to measurements which are only a matter of custom and practice. It would not become necessary, as some people have suggested, apparently seriously, to remeasure cricket pitches in metres and I see no reason why the use of imperial measures for non-trade purposes should not continue for as many years as people wish to use them.
There will of course be some costs in converting to the metric system. I believe, however, that the moderate nature of these proposals keeps these to a minimum.
There are also significant savings. The Institute of Production Engineers, for example, estimates the; additional cost of dual manufacture and stockholding at 3 per cent. of turnover.
I believe therefore that these proposals represent an acceptable compromise and I hope that we shall be able to persuade other member states that they fulfil our legal obligations under the 1979 directive. I hope that the House will endorse the Government's stance on this matter.

Ms. Joyce Quin: It is clear that the draft directive before us today both confirms and reinforces the move to metrication, although it is true that it allows some latitude in this regard.
The subject of metrication obviously evokes a mixed response in Britain and, indeed—judging from my reading of earlier debates on the subject—in the House. Certainly a variety of views has been expressed on both sides of the House.
For some, the increasing use of metric measurements seems to strike a blow against the very nature of the British identity. Some feel a strong attachment to the imperial measurement system. Perhaps, like me, they were fascinated by the mysterious, romantic-sounding lists of measurements that used to feature on the back of school exercise books. For others, however, the pace of metrication seems all too slow, and many believe that more


rapid progress should be made. The timetable for metrication envisaged more than 20 years ago has been put back and many who most feared the move towards metrication at that time would no doubt be agreeably surprised that we are discussing this document tonight. Whatever the different views on the subject, one real danger is that we are in a half-and-half position which is highly confusing. A metric muddle is being created.
The Minister referred to previous directives on the subject and explained how this one fitted in. He also described the provisions of the directive. I wish to ask him some questions. It seems clear from the Minister's responses to interventions that, although under the directive the United Kingdom and Ireland can fix a time to phase out remaining imperial measurements, there is nothing to stop the Commission itself from introducing a revised directive to make the timetable speedier, if it so wishes. If the British Government fail to come up with a date, presumably that is what the Commission will do. If the Government fix a date that the Commission feels is unrealistically far into the future, will the Minister confirm that again the Commission could take action?
When the matter was first discussed, it was on the treaty base of article 100, which provided for a unanimous decision by member states, but the present directive will be decided by a majority vote. I have attended a European parliamentary committee which considered the directive and it seemed to me that most of the other countries had little interest in how, when, or even whether the United Kingdom and Ireland chose to phase out imperial measurements. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that that is so.
Can the Minister also let us know whether, in his discussions on the matter, he has met other EEC Ministers? Many of us feel that too many of these decisions are taken by officials, often in the secretive workings of COREPER, the committee of permanent representatives, and that there is very little political input.
The mile is one example of a measurement for which the United Kingdom can decide on the changeover date. As the mile is not a barrier to trade, it would be reasonable for the Government to make their own decision on what they want to do. Nevertheless, I should like to know whether they have made any estimate of the cost of changing from the mile to the metric system. Some people feel that the Government are hesitating more on cost grounds than on the principle.
I am glad that there has been a reference to the pint because it should be made clear, to counter misleading impressions in the press, that doorstep milk deliveries are not threatened by the directive. No doubt the Minister will wish to take the opportunity to stress that again.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) raised a valid point about the sale of loose goods. Surely we do not want to make it an offence in all cases for small local shops to continue to sell by imperial measurements.
On the point raised by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) about consultation, will the Government tell us whether they plan further consultations on the directive, particularly since the response so far has not been adequate? I note that the

Government's explanatory memorandum was vague on the cost of changing for shops and firms. Can the Minister give us any further details about that?
I hope that we could all agree that in implementing the directive there should be no unfair jacking up of prices. I hope that the Government will monitor the situation closely.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Lady may be aware of what is happening now in petrol garages. The Government have allowed garages to cease displaying the price of petrol per gallon. Some garages took the opportunity in the week when petrol prices rose to stop displaying the price in gallons so the motorist did not know the price per gallon.

Ms. Quin: The hon. Gentleman's point reinforces the case for vigilance with regard to transferring from one set of measurements to another. Consumer organisations have made that point strongly to me in the past few days.
Earlier I mentioned the danger of metric confusion. We often see a confusing mixture of measurements in shops. For example, I have seen carpets quoted in metric sizes, but the underlay price quoted in imperial measurements. Many DIY shops sell wood so many feet by so many feet by so many millimetres. The various consumer groups with which I have spoken are all concerned about the confusion. That also applies to consumer groups which are in favour of full metrication straight away, such as the National Federation of Consumer Groups and the Consumers Association, which is less keen.
I refer the Minister to the interesting work carried out by Lady Attlee and the metric sense campaign. Lady Attlee feels that the way in which metrication is used in Britain at present and the way in which we have introduced systeme internationale measurements has increased the confusion and made metrication less user-friendly or consumer-friendly than it ought to be. She made the point that very often millimetres are used to quote a size which would be much easier to understand if it were expressed in metres and centimetres. For example, the standard size of a bath is apparently given as 1,700 millimetres, while it seems to me and to the metric sense campaign that 1 m 70 cm would be a more reasonable way of expressing the size.
I hope that the Government will examine the suggestions from the metric sense campaign in trying to present the metrication that we already have in a way that is helpful and not confusing to consumers. That would make necessary changes easier to achieve.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Would my hon. Friend agree—[Interruption.] In this matter, we are all friends in this country against Europe. Does the hon. Lady agree that when we consider organisations which make things user-friendly it makes them sound like pet budgies or lapdogs? Why should it damage a united Europe for this country to do what it wants and for Europe to do what it wants when we bear in mind that half the world will still use imperial measures anyway? Why should it destroy Europe if we do what 95 per cent. of British people want us to do?

Ms. Quin: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's intervention detracts from the point that I was making. I was simply saying that the consumer has the right to proper information and to have measurements presented to him in an understandable way. The hon. Gentleman


seems to dislike the phrase "user-friendly", but it is common currency among consumer organisations, as I am sure that he appreciates. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I should be obliged if the debate at the far end of the Chamber would cease. It shows great discourtesy to the hon. Lady.

Ms. Quin: The Minister said that children are educated in the metric system. That is true, but when they leave school they step outside into a rather confused environment.
The Opposition are not officially opposing this take note motion, but we hope that the Minister will listen seriously and reply to questions that I have raised and that other hon. Members will raise during the debate. We do not like harmonisation for its own sake. We want to see a diversity of customs and traditions in the EC, but we recognise that moves to metrication have taken place and that common standards exist among many areas. However, if metrication is to be successful, it needs—I do not apologise for using the expression again—to be more user-friendly than it now is. It is vital that the Government take more fully into account the needs of the consumers as well as those of industry in the decisions that they are taking.

Mr. John Fraser: I give a qualified welcome to the directive and memorandum that the Minister has presented. We should adopt the sort of programme that is being put forward tonight even if we were not a member of the EC. There is every reason for doing it for its own sake, not for the sake of harmonisation or because we happen to be a member of the EC.
My first qualification, which I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin), is that the use of the systeme internationale in the use of millimetres and other smaller measurements is not always appropriate, but, as a matter of practice, that does not occasion any difficulty. It does not seem to occasion any difficulty in Europe when we go on holiday, and it will not occasion any real difficulty here.
My second qualification is that the programme prolongs the agony by preserving—for example, in terms of traffic—the mile, the yard and the inch. I see no reason why the heights of bridges that are used by international traffic should not be set out in metres rather than in feet and inches; why the stopping distances on the motorways should not be in terms of 100 m, 200 m and so forth. The golden rule, followed in many other countries, is that if one wants to change from imperial to metric it should be as full and rapid a change as possible. The conversion from one method to another fails so long as one goes along with a dual signification. It is no good trying to have two languages of measurement working at the same time.
However, there is no reason why the traditional measures of a pint of beer or milk should not be preserved. Or we could have 568 ml, which is exactly the same size. The fact that we change from one system of measurement to another does not mean that we need to change the size or the weight of things; it is simply to change the way in which we measure things, and so I welcome this.
The case for metrication is overwhelming. First, there is the sheer beauty and simplicity of the metric system, which has been endorsed, embraced and developed by many British scientists. Many of the metric measures are named after prominent British scientists such as Newton. He was around some time ago and had no problems with the metric system.
A cube with a 10 cm base contains exactly 1,000 cc and 1,000 ml. Filled with water, it weighs exactly 1 kg. If its heat is raised by 1 deg C one has another measurement of heat. Put against something else it is a measurement of force. It is a beautiful and delightful system with a particular simplicity. Anybody who tried to do physics at school, learning foot pounds, will know exactly what I mean.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) can say how many square yards there are in an acre.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: But I do not need to know that.

Mr. Fraser: It is very much better that an area of land should be measured in hectares, which are units of 100 metres, rather than in one chain times one furlong, which is 4,840 square yards. I suggest that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, try working out the area of something that measures 3 ft 7 ½ in by 5 ft 8 ½ in. It is impossible to do without using a calculator.
Metrication does not mean that one has to change the size, speed or weight of anything. It just provides a different and easier set of relationships.
Every country has changed or is changing to metric, with three exceptions: the United States, Ireland and the United Kingdom. For an exporting industrial nation, we are crazy to pursue a different and more difficult system of measurement. Moreover, two generations or more of our children have been educated in the metric system, and I do not find that pensioners on trips to France, Spain or Portugal have any difficulty coping with metrication. I do not underestimate the intelligence or adaptability of the people whom I represent.
Furthermore, we have largely changed to metric already. As a result of changes that I made as Minister of State, virtually every prepackaged item of food is sold in metric quantities, as are coal and petrol. I shall illustrate how crazy it is to retain the imperial system in industrial terms. For a long time, this country imposed a huge cost penalty on itself by manufacturing petrol pumps for the rest of the world which dispensed in metric quantities, and which then involved the extra expense of being converted to dispense petrol in imperial quantities, simply because of our own eccentricity. That makes no industrial sense.
There is no way that we can export in imperial sizes products such as drills and fasteners to other industrial countries, which consider our use of that system to be eccentric, unusable and unacceptable. Our failure to adapt to the metric system says something about our failure as an industrial nation.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to realise that one must take into account also small shopkeepers weighing out 1 lb of raisins. The hon. Gentleman admits that it is his fault that in my constituency small shopkeepers have been visited by weights and measures officers warning that the practice of weighing out a few bags of raisins in advance and putting them on the shelf so that a customer does not have to wait renders those shopkeepers liable to prosecution. Is the hon. Gentleman proud of that?

Mr. Fraser: Yes, I am, and I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why. If one is to help the shopper make a true price comparison between one item and another, it is no use having that product packaged in a multiplicity of sizes. The right way is that which I introduced for biscuits, for which there was a monstrous arrangement of different sizes.
Butter has been packaged in metric sizes for a long time. It is sold in packs of 125, 250 or 500 g, which makes it easy to make a price comparison. The same applies in comparing the prices of large and small packets of raisins. The little old lady whom the hon. Gentleman has in mind will get ripped off only if raisins, fruit or whatever come in a range of sizes that make it difficult to compare the price of one packet with another.
When those changes were made, they enjoyed the total support of consumer organisations across the country. They were made not for any ideological reason but to make life easier for the consumer, in the same way that life is made easier for the consumer when petrol is sold in one single measure instead of in both gallons and litres, which results in enormous confusion. The hon. Member for Selly


Oak and his supporters—the imperialists who want to embalm and preserve the imperial system—are demonstrating not independence but insularity.
It would be senseless to drive into metrication overnight, but no one can accuse us of doing that. The French revolution embraced metrication more than 200 years ago. If we moved into the metric system quickly, we would give Japanese scale manufacturers and so on an enormous advantage in coming into our market. That is why it should be phased in over a period.
There is a beauty, simplicity, ease and saving in the long term in using the metric system. We should endorse it for our own sake. There have been many changes in measurement in the past, and the time has come to make a resolution, over a due period, to adopt the system which the rest of the world is going to use. If we refuse to do that, it says something about us as a manufacturing and exporting country and about our failure to do business with the rest of the world.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: I must admit that when I came to this debate I had not anticipated the kind of orgasmic enthusiasm that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), who is obviously under the impression that he is still the Minister putting forward the measure. At least my hon. Friend the Minister had the decency to appear resigned and incredulous about the measure that he was supporting, but the hon. Member for Norwood actually purported to believe in what he was saying.
As the hon. Member for Norwood rightly pointed out, 200 years ago one of the consequences of the French revolution was the introduction of metrication and decimalisation in France. Indeed, the French went even further and decimalised the week. The 10-day week was not terribly popular, however, because it meant that people had one day off every 10 days rather than every seven. I have no doubt that, in due course, some earnest committee in the European Parliament and some earnest bureaucrat in the Commission will decimilise all the other things to which we are accustomed—not just the days of the week but clocks, times and everything else.
I listened to my hon. Friend the Minister who had the misfortune to have to try to make a fist of the subject today, but who is clearly a man of too great sensibility to believe in the case that his position in Government obliges him to put forward. As I listened to him I thought of the Peter Simple column in The Daily Telegraph——

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman was in favour of the Common Market.

Mr. Hamilton: I certainly was not in favour of the Common Market. I was one of the two members of the national executive committee of the Conservative party who voted against it in 1971. I voted against it in the 1975 referendum and to the best of my recollection I have not supported any Common Market measures since I have been in the House. As usual, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is misinformed.

Mr. Skinner: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that when it came to putting a guillotine on the single European market legislation he was not in the same Lobby as those of us who were against that legislation?

Mr. Hamilton: When it comes to guillotining the hon. Gentleman and his supporters, I am always to be found in the Government Lobby, but that has nothing to do with the point at issue.
As I listened to my hon. Friend the Minister, I thought back to Dr. Heinz Kiosk, the chief psychiatric adviser to the plastic stair-rod advisory council, and his effusions in the Peter Simple column of The Daily Telegraph. I contented myself with the knowledge that my hon. Friend did not believe in the case that he put forward.
I am astonished that the Labour party—which is now attempting to become voter-friendly, in the same way as the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) talked about becoming user-friendly—is supporting this measure, but perhaps I should not be too astonished as it is a highly Socialist and bureaucratic measure. I find it difficult to understand why any Government should wish to legislate for the weights and measures of this country. A free market Government should leave it to consumers to decide the measures in which they wish to buy goods on sale in the shops. If they prefer to buy in pounds, ounces or gallons, why should the Government interfere? That preference does not prejudice the achievement of a single market in the European Community which, by and large, I support because I believe in free trade, and these matters have no bearing on the wider European horizon which, if we believe in it, is supposed to be our reason for membership of the European Community.
My hon. Friend the Minister referred to consultation. As we know, groups that are consulted by Government to discover what consumers believe often do not represent the views of the man in the street. If we had an opinion poll on whether this measure is acceptable to British people, 95 per cent. or more would be opposed to it.
I appreciate that power politics are involved here. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, we do not have a blocking minority in the Council of Ministers, so I accept that force majeure, as a consequence of the Single European Act, means that we shall have no influence on what I regard as an important measure.
My hon. Friend the Minister said that, although we are making it a criminal offence to sell in pounds and ounces or pints and gallons, we have some refuge in the fact that this law will not be enforced. It seems extraordinary that this proposal will be a dead letter as soon as it is introduced.
I register my regret that the Government, for whatever reason, are giving credence to an unnecessary measure, which goes against the essence of what we have been trying to do since 1979—to elevate the consumer and his choices above those dictated by bureaucrats.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: There is all-party agreement that the Government find themselves in a difficult position here, as they have on other harmonisation measures, especially emotive and traditional ones such as feet and inches and pints and litres. Essentially, within the context of Europe, the Government are trying to square a circle and have it both ways. In that respect, they are handling it as constructively as they can.
Having listened to the Minister, I suspect that we are stuck with a European fait accompli. As the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said, we do not


understand how, under the European voting mechanisms, the safeguards to which the Minister referred will be assured.

Mr. Skinner: What is the Scottish nationalists' view of the issue?

Mr. Kennedy: I shall come to that in a moment. Only Britain and Ireland are in an imperialistic position, so I do not understand how there will be any safeguard if we accept the spirit and substance of the directive. The Minister is not to blame because the issue was decided a long time ago.
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) just mentioned the views of the Scottish National party, to which I do not subscribe, but were an independent Scotland represented on the Council of Ministers it could give the Republic of Ireland and England and Wales the force of its arguments and vote. This would be a good opportunity for Scottish National party Members to make that point, but they are not present.
On the question of practice within this country, again, the Minister is saying what his hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) has just said is absolutely correct. The Minister has said, "We will introduce this" but in response to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and others he has said, "Don't worry. We will be turning a blind eye to things. We will not be implementing it or following it up." [Interruption.] He is dissenting from that, but he gave the clear impression that it would be technically illegal for a trader to serve loose goods, for example, in the corner shop example mentioned by my hon. Friend. I cannot remember the exact phrase he used, but he spoke about how the inspectors would obviously be treating this with sensitivity, and the impression left with Labour Members, and I think with Conservative Members too, was that it would render nugatory the entire effect of the measure.

Mr. Maude: I am happy to repeat what I said, although not perhaps in the exact words. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) was perhaps giving the impression that the day after any such measures came into operation there would be jack-booted trading standards officers roaming around the streets, seeking out small shopkeepers who were using imperial measures. All I was saying was that that was absurd. That is not the way in which trading standards officers operate, but that is not to say that this would be a dead letter; it would become a criminal offence for traders to sell in unauthorised units, as it is now, and I stress that we have a Weights and Measures Act which makes it illegal to use certain measures at the moment.

Mr. Kennedy: It seems to be a ministerial endorsement of circumspect illegality, as far as I can see, or a softly-softly approach. That may be sensible and welcome, but we, as a country, cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Beith: I never mentioned jack boots. I have never seen a trading standards officer in jack boots. They normally dress rather as hon. Members here are dressed. They simply come along, as I have known them do in my constituency, and challenge traders for illegally dispensing packaged goods in non-metric quantities, and it seems to me certain that those same officers will come along within

a short time of this legislation coming into force and tell traders that they must stop meeting the requests of old ladies who say, "Please will you give me 5 lb of potatoes". For that situation to prevail in this country seems to be plainly ludicrous.

Mr. Kennedy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I think, in view of his reservoir of constituency experience, it is clearly something the DTI may want to look at as a matter of policy.
The Minister spoke about the consultation exercise. I very much agree with the hon. Member for Tatton that the Minister is either misreading the public mood or indulging in what would be quite understandable wishful thinking, given the measure he has to defend and, indeed, clarify for the House, in saying that the response to that consultation exercise would mirror attitudes in the country as a whole. That really is an exercise in wishful thinking by the Minister. Given that public opinion will be, I should have thought, rather strong on these matters, it would be as well either for the Government to launch a fresh consultative exercise or at least to embark on a programme of public education on inevitable changes towards metrication.
Secondly, in the DTI's own analysis reference is properly made to transitional periods, some of which will stretch over a decade and more. None the less, I hope that the DTI, or the relevant sponsoring departments in other parts of Government, will be sympathetic to any transitional difficulties which industries or small businesses will encounter as a result of having to change working practices and, perhaps, machinery or implements for the conduct of their business. I hope that the Government will respond positively to that point.
It is obvious that enthusiasm, or the lack of it, for this measure crosses party boundaries. My party will treat this as a conscience issue. The only point on which I seek a categorical assurance is that we shall continue to be able to talk about, to raise glasses of and to down drams well into the future.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I am grateful to be called so that I may apologise for not being here for the whole of the debate.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), who clearly understands, as only a member of his party could, people who are proposing a schizophrenic situation. He said that his party would treat the issue as a matter of conscience and would vote both ways upon it. I remind him of the words of Mr. Gladstone at the time of the Turkish-Bulgarian difficulties. He said that he regarded it as a great insult that he had been accused of being a democrat.
If harmonisation, whatever that may mean, is to be undertaken, surely it is unwise to undertake it on the basis of the wrong system.

Mr. Skinner: Very profound.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I am glad that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) understands that simple concept.
I was the Member of Parliament who saved the mile. Under the Labour Government of 1974 to 1979 it was to be abolished on the basis that it would be an industrial danger to Britain if the mile were not the same as the kilometre. I asked the Minister how many things were


measured in miles. I said that we do not measure miles of baked beans or miles of wire. Eventually the mile was saved. I see that the mile that I saved in the face of the idiocies of the then Government's concepts is again under threat.
If we harmonise measurements, why not get right the concept of the measurements that we intend to harmonise? My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) referred to the fact that during the French revolution there was a 10-day week.

Mr. Skinner: Not in here.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: If there is one concept on which measurements and mathematics are badly based, it is the repeat factor of 10. The decimal system is idiotic. If 10 per cent. is added to 10, we get 11—a prime factor that is useless. If we take 10 per cent. away from 10, that leads to nine, which is three times three. That is equally useless. A repeat system of counting should be at two squared, two cubed or two to the power of four, which is the best. Very few people understand it, but—

Mr. Skinner: I am waiting for the hon. and learned Gentleman to get to the mirrored J curve.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: The hon. Gentleman may feed me good lines, but he can do better than that.

Mr. Skinner: The mirrored J curve was what Woy Jenkins was into.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I do not know what Woy Jenkins was into, but I should be vewy suwpwised if he did not buy his clawet in dozens. At least under the duodecimal system it involves 2 squared by 3. If people are asked how much cake they want, they do not ask for a fifth of it. They say, "Halve it and halve it again", so two is the concept. People count on their fingers not because there are 10 of them, but because they are there. It would not matter if they had three fingers or 23 fingers on each hand, people would still count to 10. People with four fingers still count to 10. It is a fatuous concept that 10 is holy. As a counting system, 10 is the worst figure on which to base trade. It has no concept in sensible measurement or arithmetical relevance.
When we used the imperial system, at least children in school had to use their minds instead of a calculator or an easy system. Children can do their 10 times table, but it does not exercise their minds; they should know the other tables to understand the importance of arithmetical measurements. The sensible systems—the pint, the yard, the mile—all have much more relevant bases for intelligent measurement than any decimal system.
We are discussing a European matter. The measurement from which Europe started was the duodecimal system, the Roman system, which was a much more intelligent basic system.
If we are to change the system to a common system, we should change it to the right system, not to a stupid system. The decimal system is a foolish system. It has no helpful basis in trade; it costs enormous funds because of the complication of its mathematical incidences. If we are to change, let us stand up for a system of counting whereby the change is either at 12 or 6, thus making a major salvation in the costs of industry. In all seriousness, let us not move to something just because we do not understand

that the repeat system is wrongly based. If we are all to use the same repeat system and the same weights system, let us use the most commercially sensible one.

Mr. Win Griffiths: The absurdity in the mess of arrangements for the use of imperial and metric measurement that we have heard about tonight is principally because the European Community has bent over backwards to take account of British and Irish sensibilities over weights and measures systems.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) said, it would have been far better had we moved much more quickly to the metric system, rather than maintained the imperial system with it. What hon. Members seem to forget is that at least those of us of my generation have children going through school who are being taught the metric system of weights and measures and are perfectly able to cope with all that that means. If there are difficulties for older people like the lady—she could be in my constituency or in the constituency of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon—Tweed (Mr. Beith)—who wants 5 lb of potatoes, the enterprising shopkeeper will sell her 2·27 kg and not worry about what the weights and measures people may say.
The use of two different systems at present gives rise to absurd situations. For example, as is my wont, I was doing the family's weekly shopping last Saturday at Leo's co-operative retail superstore in Pyle, in my constituency, and I happened to buy some coleslaw, of a reduced dressing variety, loose across the counter. It was sold in imperial units. As I wandered across towards where the prepackaged variety was on sale I thought that I would check to see whether I had got a bargain. Of course, the prepackaged variety was being sold in 227 g packs. Only because I knew that this is as close as we can get to half a pound was I able to make the calculation.
It would be perfectly easy to have common quantities displayed in both metric and imperial measurements for, say, the next 10 years to enable people, like some here who seem to find difficulty in using the metric system, to use it in an intelligent way. If there is concern about the doorstep pinta, the milkman can sell it as 0·5683 litre. Then we would know that we still had our pinta.
We are making a lot of fuss about something that is really not all that important provided that the public know exactly what they are getting. There is no need to be afraid of this directive. In fact, there is provision for the measurements that are used most commonly domestically —for example, the pint and the mile—to be protected for a very long time. I anticipate that no hon. Member need worry about being forced to give up the nomenclature "pint" when he is buying in a pub or picking up the pinta at the doorstep.
This is really a fear of facing the future—things that our children are currently being taught in school. The fuss that we are making about this directive is indicative of the general problems that we face in meeting the challenges of the 21st century.

Mr. Hugo Summerson: I rise to make a brief plea for the continuance of the mixed system. We have a classic example of that system, of course, in the motor car. When W. O. Bentley set out to design his motor


car in 1919 he said that it would be a 3 litre model. The wheel base was in feet and inches, and the car developed so much horse power—imperial horse power, not metric horse power. From the birth of the motor car this was the system of measurement of power and engine size, and we have all understood it.
In any case—going from that form of transport to the railway trai—we all know that the gauge of the track in this country is 4 ft 8½ in, and I defy anyone to express that in metric terms. I fear that if one were to go to any British Rail workshop and say, "In future we are going to have tracks of 1·853322 m" there would be even more engines off the rails than there are at present.
The House will recall that in George Orwell's "1984" Winston Smith bought an old man a drink in a pub which served nothing but litres and half litres. The old man said that half a litre was not enough and that one litre was too much as it set his bladder running. That is a classic example of "metricism". We are faced with a tyranny and hon. Members should remember that poor man in "1984". It is clear that the pint is designed for the British stomach.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) spoke about the little old lady who buys 5 lb of potatoes. Apart from the fact that if she does that with regularity she will be little no longer, she understands what 5 lb of potatoes looks like, as we do. We all understand what a 15-stone or an 18-stone man looks like. If I went to meet a stranger and somebody else told me that he weighed 200 kg I would not have a clue about him. Does that mean he is enormous or little? If I were told that he weighed 15 stone I would know the sort of person for whom I would have to look out.
I do not like all the talk about "phasing in" as it represents an uncertain process. The next thing will be a proposal, "phased in during two years", that we all drive on the right-hand side of the road. What a recipe for disaster. I suppose that, first, we shall have lorries driving on the right, followed by buses. The whole thing would be a complete muddle.
I am always worried when I hear of Governments giving "permission" for things as that implies that Governments have more in their gift than they actually have to give. My hon. Friend the Minister should keep a wary eye on the Commission on the other side of the Channel. Any further proposals to do away with the imperial measures, which we all know and which the man on the Walthamstow omnibus understands, will receive short shrift.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I shall be brief as I know that this debate has to end shortly. I want to put down the marker that I do not like the directive and I do not like the idea that the proposal would authorise the United Kingdom and Ireland to fix a date for ending the use of miles, yards, feet and inches, even though the Minister may say that the Government will not exercise that right.
If this legislature had any sort of adequate scrutiny over the flood of statutory instruments which pour out of Departments at the rate of more than 2,000 per year, it might be arguable that all hon. Members could keep an eagle eye out for any Minister, who is but a pawn in the

hands of civil servants, slipping one or two subclauses into a subparagraph of a statutory instrument—which is not amendable in any case—to get rid of the mile, the yard, the foot or the inch. In reality, however, this place does not give adequate scrutiny to statutory instruments, and any change to our measurements will be implemented by such means rather than by primary legislation.
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments cannot report on the merits of a statutory instrument; it can report only on its technicalities. A statutory instrument cannot be amended and I do not believe that we have the power to keep an adequate grip on Government to stop some surge of ambition by a Minister deciding to metricate. I view the proposal before us with great caution.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) has already said, it is not true that industry has been progressively metricated. We have not, for example, adopted universally the metric thread, which is a basic component of engineering. We consider ourselves to be a manufacturing nation, albeit less so under the present Government. There is American fine thread and unified thread, both of which are a basic requirement for any country exporting motor vehicles. The notion that metrication is a basic prerequisite to building up our manufacturing base to achieve more exports is not universally true. Millions of people use miles, yards, feet and inches as a matter of convenience and we should continue with the duality. If it is convenient for consumers to do that, why not let them do it? Why should we not retain gallons rather than litres as a matter of consumer choice?
It would be to our advantage in many respects to stay as we are. We would not have to calibrate instruments again. If people want the option of using metric measurements, they can use them, but I object to this creeping harmonisation for no purpose other than the harmonising of everything that the Commission can get its hands on.
In view of what the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) said about changing the side of the road on which we drive, I warn the House that there is a strong desire on the part of the members of the transport committee of the EEC to make us do that. It is the stated aim of many in the Strasbourg assembly that we should make that change. Let us retain the dual system of weights and measures and let this directive meander on for the next 40 years while we do nothing about it. I hope that hon. Members will take that view and vote against it today.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: These debates take place late at night for a good reason—in a sense, they reflect the twilight of the power of the House of Commons.

Mr. Skinner: You can say that again.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: It matters not that we have spoken about this issue for an hour and a half. Indeed, whether or not we vote on it does not matter——

Mr. Skinner: It matters to us.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: —because what is proposed will happen all the same. These debates take place simply to humour us.

Mr. Skinner: Humour?

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Do you agree, Madam Deputy Speaker. that if the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) wants to take part in the debate he should do so in a civilised way like the rest of us?

Mr. Skinner: Frankly, I get fed up listening to this sort of hypocrisy from Tory Members who take part in debates on EEC directives and often speak against them, but when it comes to a vote, as it will today, they—and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) in particular—are missing as usual.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Despite the cleverness of the hon. Member for Bolsover—I have his permission to say how clever he is—it is no good him saying that one is missing from this or that vote on a Common Market issue. Which Government sold this country out?

Mr. Skinner: I did not vote for it.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: It is no good the hon. Gentleman saying that he did not vote for it. He is not the only member of the Labour party.

Mr. Skinner: Get on with it.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Madam Deputy Speaker, do you intend to control this debate or is the hon. Member for Bolsover——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) intend to proceed with his speech?

Mr. Skinner: That is a good question.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: If you intend to allow this sort of hectoring to go on minute after minute, hour after hour, we shall have no debate——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Selly Oak does his share of hectoring. Does he intend to continue his speech, or shall I call the Minister to reply to the debate?

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I am deeply wounded that you should suggest such a thing of me, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I repeat that our votes on these directives matter not at all. We are given an hour and a half's debate to humour us. If we voted unanimously against what is proposed, it would still happen. That is why it is a waste of time having these debates and voting at the end of them.

Mr. Maude: This has been a fascinating debate in which contributions have ranged from the crusty reaction of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), to the radicalism of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and the revolutionary approach of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn). Not content merely that we should oppose any further move towards metrication, my hon. and learned Friend thinks that we should unravel the whole system of counting and should abandon 10 as the base for anything. I fall neatly in the middle in this interesting debate.
I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) who says that such debates are simply for show and mean nothing. They are important, especially when they take place at an

early stage in negotiations. That is the case with this debate. Such debates genuinely allow the Government to gauge mood and they inform the negotiating process. I should be disappointed if any hon. Member felt that contributions to the debate are not noted. They are noted and fulfil an extremely important purpose.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Is it right that this proposal was put forward in an explanatory memorandum in January? My hon. Friend the Minister has taken the opportunity to bring the measure before the House long before the Council of Ministers has to make a decision, which is expected before the end of the year. I congratulate the Minister on bringing this matter to the House so that it can express an opinion.

Mr. Maude: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That has been our intention and, as I say, matters are at an early stage of negotiation. The European Parliament has not yet made a final decision and there is still some way to go.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) is making her debut on the Opposition Front Bench, but if she is I warmly congratulate her on her appointment. We have faced each other in Committee. She made a distinguished contribution to the debate.
The hon. Lady asked whether the Commission might produce another proposal, but I have nothing to add to what I have said. As hon. Members know, there is nothing to prevent the Commission from producing further proposals, but there is no reason to suppose that it proposes to do so.
The form of words used in the group of measures, which it is in our power to retain for as long as we wish, is the most liberal—if I may use that word—that it is possible under law for the Commission to propose. There is no possibility under the law of that being further amended.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East and some of my hon. Friends asked about consultation. There were approximately 140 responses to the 700 letters that we sent out. Only two were firmly against the proposals and the others were in favour or neutral. I repeat that the consultation and the fairly wide publicity that the proposals received in the media did not elicit very strong feelings in one direction or the other. On that basis we have gone forward with the discussions.
The hon. Lady asked whether there would be further consultations. I do not anticipate further public consultations this side of the directive being agreed. At some time in future when domestic legislation has to be amended to give effect to the directive, it will be right to have detailed and extensive consultation about the way in which the directive is implemented and its timing. Of course I give the undertaking that that will take place.
The hon. Lady asked about costs and whether the mile could be argued to be a barrier to trade. There are those who argue that the continued use of the mile is a barrier to trade. We do not agree that it is a significant one, but car manufacturers have to produce cars with two different distance meters. That is, of course, a trifling inconvenience compared with that of having to put the steering wheel on the other side. None the less, it is argued by some to be a barrier to trade, but it is in our estimation a trifling one.
The cost of converting road signs into metric units would be very large indeed. It would be in the region, we estimate, of £30 million to £50 million, and clearly that is a powerful reason for not proceeding.

Mr. Tony Favell: rose——

Mr. Maude: I must not give way because I have only one minute to go and I have a little more to say.
The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) paid me a slightly backhanded compliment—I hope that I am correct in referring to it as a compliment. He referred to specific requests for transitional periods. A number of those have been made and as far as possible they have been accommodated in the proposals. The hon. Member asked whether he and his constituents would continue to be able to drink drams and I can confirm that they will. I shall be happy to join him for one as soon as the debate is finished.

It being one and a half hours after commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 ( Exempted business).

The House divided: Ayes 107, Noes 27.

Division No. 155]
[11.46 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Couchman, James


Amos, Alan
Cran, James


Arbuthnot, James
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Ashby, David
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Atkinson, David
Day, Stephen


Baldry, Tony
Devlin, Tim


Batiste, Spencer
Dorrell, Stephen


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Durant, Tony


Boswell, Tim
Fallon, Michael


Bottomley, Peter
Favell, Tony


Brazier, Julian
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bright, Graham
Forman, Nigel


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
French, Douglas


Browne, John (Winchester)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Burns, Simon
Gill, Christopher


Burt, Alistair
Gorst, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Carrington, Matthew
Gregory, Conal


Chope, Christopher
Griftiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hague, William





Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Rhodes James, Robert


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Riddick, Graham


Hampson, Dr Keith
Sackville, Hon Tom


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Harris, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Stern, Michael


Irvine, Michael
Stevens, Lewis


Jack, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Jackson, Robert
Summerson, Hugo


Kennedy, Charles
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lang, Ian
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Thurnham, Peter


Lightbown, David
Trippier, David


Maclean, David
Twinn, Dr Ian


McLoughlin, Patrick
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Maude, Hon Francis
Wallace, James


Miller, Sir Hal
Waller, Gary


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Wells, Bowen


Moss, Malcolm
Wheeler, John


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Widdecombe, Ann


Neale, Gerrard
Wiggin, Jerry


Neubert, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Yeo, Tim


Nicholls, Patrick



Norris, Steve
Tellers for the Ayes:


Paice, James
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory and Mr. Sydney Chapman.


Raffan, Keith



Redwood, John





NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McFall, John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
McLeish, Henry


Beith, A. J.
Meale, Alan


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Nellist, Dave


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Pike, Peter L.


Dixon, Don
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Vaz, Keith


Fyfe, Maria
Wareing, Robert N.


Haynes, Frank
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Winterton, Nicholas


Janman, Tim



Lewis, Terry
Tellers for the Noes:


Livsey, Richard
Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Dennis Skinner.


McAllion, John



McAvoy, Thomas

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4102/89 on units of measurement; and welcomes the proposals as providing adequate transitional periods to enable businesses and consumers to adapt and become used to the new measurements.

Driver Licensing

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 10357/1/88 on driver licensing; and endorses the Government's objective of negotiating satisfactory amendments with respect to the drivers of non-commercial minibuses and light goods vehicles, drivers from other Member States resident in the United Kingdom, and disabled drivers.
The ratio of risk for a passenger travelling in a minibus is less than half that of someone travelling in a car. It is one sixty fifth of someone travelling on a motor bike.
One part of the Commission's proposals on driver licensing is that minibus drivers should be required to take a public service vehicle test and after the age of 45 should be required to take regular medicals. That is unacceptable. If the British licensing system for minibuses applied throughout the European Community, instead of there being 10 million passenger journeys a year in voluntary minibuses there would be 50 million or more. The groups that benefit from the voluntary minibus system in Britain, often in buses provided by the Lord's Taverners or in the Variety Club's Sunshine coaches, would increase so that children, young people, youth organisations, Church groups, students and the elderly, including war veterans, terms translatable throughout the rest of Europe, would also benefit. That would provide extra advantages, extra mobility and, as I have emphasised, extra safety.
In considering European Community draft directives we want to maintain and enhance safety and mobility. Other countries will raise other points about this draft directive.

Mr. Bowen Wells: How could the European Commissioner responsible for this proposal —Mr. Stanley Clinton Davis who used to be a Member of this House—have written a letter claiming that he had steered the proposal through the Commission in the light of the facts that my hon. Friend has just provided for the House?

Mr. Bottomley: There are some things that I cannot answer. It is common ground between the Commissioner emeritus, myself and hon. Members on both sides of the House that the Mobility Alliance, which represents many of the groups which would be affected by this part of the proposal, has been praised by ex-Commissioner Clinton Davis. If he and I respect the work that it does, we should respect its opinion. I think that it is right to say that the present Commissioner, Mr. van Miert, is willing to look at the matter again. I do not want to turn this into a personal attack and that is why I responded to the rather extraordinary letter of 14 December in the way that I did. That may have been a mistake. Perhaps I should have invited a punch up, but I cannot believe that the evidence is not so clear that in time the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers and, I hope, the Commission will come together and acknowledge that Britain has developed a system of transportation which will be of value throughout the EC and which should be protected in Britain and be allowed to spread.

Mr. Roger King: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the level of injuries, accidents or deaths is high, given the vehicle densities it is the lowest in Europe?

Mr. Bottomley: That is right. We are way behind some European countries on pedestrian safety, but we are way ahead in the provision of non-commercial transport for groups with special interests or needs and with community interests such as students. When students go to another college to play water polo—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) may laugh, but that is what I did. If we consider rugby as he suggests, we include a spare man and we will start going above the 16-seat capacity and we are talking about minibuses with between nine and 16 seats.
There is common interest in this matter throughout the House. Many other countries will have difficulties with parts of the draft directive. I suspect that during the next year or so the Council of Ministers will be finding ways of allowing flexibility, which will be important. If other countries find difficulties when we do not, it is not in our interests to force them to change unnecessarily. They may be trying to protect a position that we may wish to adopt. We may want to learn from their experience. We want to try to bring some of the obvious problems into the open. One of the problems is minibus driver licensing, which is wrong. I hope that there will be unanimity in the House on that, although, sad to day, there was not unanimity in the European Parliament on 14 December when one or two people of other political groups said that the Secretary of State was trying to use deregulation of buses to assist his arguments.
We want to make it plain that commercial operators of minibuses would be required to have their drivers take the public service vehicle test. It is the volunteer drivers who are important and well worth protecting.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Many hon. Members receive letters from many charitable organisations and we are heartened not just by my hon. Friend's view but by his flexibility. Can he give us a genuine and clear understanding that that flexibility will take place in Europe? The charitable organisations that use the minibuses do an enormous amount of good for hundreds of thousands of people.

Mr. Bottomley: I think that the message is getting through. Some developments that Britain has pioneered have been copied by others. For example, the orange badge scheme which allows privileges to people with real mobility difficulties has now been copied. In London the air buses between Heathrow airport and the London railway stations each take two wheelchirs. That sort of integrated service is far better than a specialist service. That is the kind of transport spectrum which many people have developed—[Interruption.] That is a sensible expression for those with mobility handicaps. For others we use the word coherent. I am sure that, as the Labour party searches for reality, it will come to adopt that, together with most of the other policies that it is learning from us.
The key point is that we want to try to spread what is good and right. Something that is as good as or better than going by car or not moving at all needs to be protected.

Mr. James Wallace: I am sure that the Minister will enjoy the unanimity that he is seeking, but can he give some idea of the extent to which he has discovered, in discussion with his fellow transport Ministers from other Community countries, that the argument that we are advancing is gaining ground?

Mr. Bottomley: It is difficult to be certain. However, if Members of the European Parliament who spoke against the Government's proposals change their minds, that will help. There were one or two who, as reported in the official journal of the European Parliament of 14 December, made it plain that they were not convinced.
I do not want to personalise this matter in any way. I know the difficulties that can arise. I see that my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary is in his place, so I may know more very shortly. However, I am sure that in the last month that Commissioner Clinton Davis was working he tried to clear many issues—and bringing the draft directive into the open was important. Nevertheless, a mistake was made. If he could be man enough to say, "I am sorry. I made a mistake over minibus driving licences", that would make a great difference to the staff within the directorate concerned.
I repeat that I do not want to be personal. When Clinton Davis wrote a rather peculiar letter to me, I turned the other cheek. That may have been a mistake, but it was probably better to go on as I did and to ask him to change his mind and accept the case for safety and mobility, and to join the all-British campaign to maintain the right to drive minibuses on ordinary driving licences—perhaps with the extra assurance of safety that that option will be available only to people with two years' driving experience. That system is one which we think will work for motor bikes of greater power or of larger cubic capacity.
The Commission's proposal is the latest step in Community plans for harmonisation. Discussions began more than 10 years ago, and the first directive was adopted in 1980. It is intended that the latest initiative will complete the harmonisation process.
Conformity of licensing systems is generally welcomed. It is good news for drivers—especially those of lorries and buses—who go abroad, as common format licences will be recognised immediately in all member states. The introduction of a single licence showing all driving entitlement offers opportunities for streamlining the existing system to provide a quicker and cheaper service. This should not be achieved at the cost of existing safety standards or of the mobility of sections of the population. A number of serious issues must be resolved before we can agree to the latest proposals.
The Commission's proposals are supposed to replace and enlarge upon the 1980 directive. There is a long way to go before their adoption. The proposals will need to be discussed in a European Council working group, and negotiations are likely to take many months—I suspect that that means one year or more—to complete.
Widespread consultations are in progress. The Department is consulting about 800 individuals and bodies. There are three major areas of concern. One is the indefinite recognition of licences issued in other member states. That will cause problems for the driver record, because a category of drivers would be unrecorded. It would cause problems also for the fixed penalty system, because there is no provision for recording endorsements

on licences issued in other member states. It would cause problems for the courts, because they have no jurisdiction to endorse licences issued by other member states.
I ought to share with the House the information that a number of other member countries are to examine our system of penalty points and endorsements, because it offers a flexibility that others might welcome.

Mr. Alan Meale: Italy imposes an age limit of 60 on the drivers of commercial buses and lorries. Will the Minister advise the House if in future negotiations it is attempted to impose such a limit on British drivers?

Mr. Bottomley: The Department must be open with the House because here and in industry—among unions and employers alike—there is a common interest in working out what makes sense. It is a question of deciding what is right and then ascertaining whether such is possible. I shall certainly be open with the House, as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Meale: The Minister is surely aware that a number of commercial vehicle drivers are aged over 60 and are intending to retire at 65. He must be aware also that a number of the people who offer their services as drivers to voluntary groups are also aged over 60.

Mr. Bottomley: Without saying that our system is the best in all respects, we try to judge people by their medical condition rather than just by their age. People are different from racehorses.

Mr. John Prescott: indicated assent.

Mr. Bottomley: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) for agreeing with me. In him we see the new shadow Cabinet spokesman whom we recognised last Friday. I should not say too much about racehorses, having read The Guardian on Sunday and discovered that none of its tipsters put the Grand National winner in the top four.
The specification of details of conditions attached to drivers with a disability on the licence causes another problem. It is incompatible with the "until aged 70" licensing which we have, because vehicles, adaptations and prostheses are likely to change several times over the life of a licence holder. The proposal would be hurtful to disabled people because their disability will be printed on the licence. It will be difficult to fit the details on computer licences because limited space is available. Of those reasons, I regard the third as the least important and the first two as very important.
As I have said, there is a problem with the treatment of drivers of minibuses and light goods vehicles. The directive would be disastrous for the voluntary and community transport systems, because volunteers would not come forward if a second test and higher medical standards were required. Dr. Barnardos estimated that it would lose five out of six volunteer drivers with this sort of system. Those who suggest that it is up to Government to pay the cost of extra tests do not understand how the volunteer system works.
The proposal for the treatment of drivers of minibuses and light goods vehicles is unjustified on road safety grounds because statistics show that travelling in minibuses is safer than travelling in cars. If adopted, the


proposal would be a missed opportunity for other member states, who could enjoy the benefits of our system. Other points may arise in the light of the consultation exercise.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Judging from comments tonight and previous discussions in the House on this issue, it appears that the House is behind the Minister in his battles with the European Community. Will he comment on the fact that this matter will be taken under majority voting by the European Community under article 100A? Therefore, of much more importance is whether he has the support of the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Bottomley: We have not yet reached that stage. I shall share with the House a letter which I have received from Commissioner Karel van Miert, who has taken over as the transport Commissioner. He said that he was much impressed by our case for
still more sympathetic consideration in the provision of transport services and of the difficulties which may be experienced by people with restricted mobility".
That goes slightly beyond the strict charity definition. The Commissioner said that he attached
great importance to this issue and would like the Commission to play an active role in this area.
It seems as though we are regaining some of the ground that should never have been lost. The Commissioner said that he will accept our suggestion to have this important matter discussed—starting with discussions between officials, and then between the Commissioner and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or me. That shows that there is an appreciation of our initiatives on mobility and safety.
If the rest of the European Community had our road safety record, 40 per cent. fewer people would have died last year. We lead the Community in road casualty reduction and in mobility for those with special needs.
The United Kingdom is generally able to comply with the directive, without major changes to existing arrangements. The draft directive offers the opportunity to consider changes in tests, other than those required by it, and we shall consider our tests generally in the light of consultations on the directive which are now in progress.
The basic concept of staging of entitlement for driving lorries, passenger vehicles and trailers is acceptable in principle, but individual cases will need to be considered very carefully. We look forward to the results of the consultation, in which we hope people will participate. In some cases, experience criteria will be preferable to extra tests. We made that compromise on minibuses and it may also apply to motor cycles of more than 400 cc or more than 35 kW in power.
We agree with the Commission's proposal to limit the size or power of bikes which inexperienced motor cyclists may ride. Considerations of the detailed proposal—whether it should be a cubic capacity or a power limit—are still being considered, and we have an open mind on that.
We do not accept the need for a separate test before motor cyclists may ride large machines, although I am prepared to continue to give consideration to the motor cyclist who passes the test and then wishes to move on to a larger machine. It may be appropriate to allow the option of an extra test. We shall argue for two years' experience after passing the old motor cycle test before allowing a motor cyclist to ride larger and more powerful machines.
The Government aim to get the Commission to accept changes that maintain an incentive for drivers to exchange licences issued elsewhere for the United Kingdom version if they are to spend some time in this country. We want to allow descriptions of disabilities on licences and details of prostheses to be in a generalised form compatible with long-period licensing. We want the Commission to allow minibuses and light goods vehicles to continue to be driven on an ordinary car entitlement without a second test or higher medical standards. We are not trying to ease the qualifications for commercial bus drivers, which may have been one of the misunderstandings that occurred in December.
There are some signs that the Commission is willing to listen to our arguments. We will need to work with other member states, many of which have similar if not identical concerns, in discussions in the Council working group. La the meantime, it is necessary to press ahead with existing commitments under the first directive.
The Road Traffic (Driving Licensing and Information Systems) Bill will come before the House for Second Reading on Thursday. It will be essential to meet existing commitments, particularly the integration of ordinary and vocational licences to show all entitlements on a single licence. This will be an advantage to professional and vocational drivers. The change will involve a major transformation of both systems. The transfer of vocational licensing to the DVLC will lead to a quicker and cheaper service for lorry and bus drivers as well as improvements to the service for ordinary drivers.
It is sensible to facilitate the adoption of the best features of the Commission's latest proposals, and we are doing that. I assure the House that the Bill that we shall consider on Thursday does not facilitate the introduction of the proposals that are of concern, especially those on minibuses. It does not sell the pass on these issues; it is drafted on the assumption that our present arrangements will continue. If we are unsuccessful in Brussels—and I do not expect to be—and have to adopt any of the proposals, we will have to return to Parliament before we implement further changes.
I am grateful for hon. Members' support and I hope that we can spread it so that it becomes universal among our representation in Europe, and I hope that we can get a little change from the Commissioner emeritus, which would make it much easier for the Commission to accept a sensible change that would maintain and enhance safety and mobility.

Ms. Joan Ruddock: This is a short but by no means unimportant or insignificant debate.
The document that we are discussing must be set in the context of the European Commission's efforts to ensure the removal of all obstacles to the free movement of people. As I understand it, we are already at the first stage of that process—a halfway house requiring member states to adopt a common format for the licence, to harmonise their categories of licence and to provide common standards of competence and fitness to drive.
As the Minister said, part of the Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Bill arises from the


first directive. Hon. Members will be relieved to hear that I shall keep my remarks on those aspects of the directive brief in anticipation of Thursday's debate.
We believe that our overriding aim should be the improvement of road safety. It would be disastrous to introduce legislative change simply to save money or for administrative convenience. In other circumstances, we have encountered the contradictory pulls of safety requirements and pressure to cut costs and save money. It is clear that cost-cutting should not be a priority in developing a safe and comprehensive driver licensing system.
We note that the Government's consultative document on the unified driving licence estimates that the effect of centralising the licence issuing system will be the loss of 100 jobs and savings of up to £1 million a year. Will the Minister give more detail on where the job losses will be? Will he take the opportunity to increase staff at Swansea to reduce delays in obtaining licences, especially passenger service vehicle and heavy goods vehicle licences? Will he give the House the assurance that the reorganisation of licence issuing will not be used as an excuse for a cost-cutting exercise?
I turn now to the document under discussion, which, as the Minister said, is still subject to negotiation with other member states. The document falls into a number of sections. The basic proposal is that member states should introduce a national driving licence which would be mutually recognised in all member countries. On the face of it, that seems to make sense, and would relieve a foreign national of the need to exchange his or her national licence for a UK licence when resident in this country. However, we foresee, as the Minister has described, problems for the penalty and endorsement system, as no court in one country can award penalty points or endorse a driving licence issued in another country.
The Minister has informed the House tonight that the Government are pressing for licence holders from other member states living in Britain still to be required to obtain a British licence, and in general we support that position.
That brings me to the question of driving standards. Members of the Transport and General Workers Union have expressed their concern to me about the possible deterioration of driving standards if a unified drivers' licence with mutual recognition is adopted. In order to prevent such a deterioration it will be necessary to harmonise testing throughout the Community and that testing will need to be to the highest standards. The document we are considering does lay down minimum requirements for drivers' tests, which will mean that in this country, for example, we will have to include a parking test and more theory.
No doubt in some countries the minimum standards proposed will result in an improvement in driver testing, but we believe that there are problems for us. First, the judgment used in passing or failing applicants will vary from country to country, so a standard of driving which may pass in one country may fail in another. Secondly, we need an assurance that these standards will be implemented as quickly as possible so that any discrepancies in the testing requirements are ironed out. Perhaps the Minister would comment further on these points in his response.
Harmonisation in licensing also encompasses the reclassification of vehicles and the entitlement to drive, and of course, as the Minister has said, it is this aspect of the document which has generated most controversy, with its proposed new category of vehicles with nine to 16 passenger seats or between 3·5 and 7·5 tonnes in weight. Drivers in this category will have to have not just the car licence, as at present, but a second driving test, and be subject to more rigorous medical conditions than for the standard licence.
We sympathise very much with those voluntary organisations who are alarmed at these proposals. Their drivers at present, of course, because they do not drive for hire or reward, are able to drive minibuses on ordinary car licences. We recognise, as does the Minister, that the use of minibuses by community groups is particularly widespread in Britain. Some of the organisations in my constituency which would be affected by these proposals have been in contact with me. Age Concern, Lewisham Association for People with Disabilities, the Lewisham Indo-Chinese Community and Pensioners' Link are all organisations that I know well. I know how well they serve our community. The position is unique in Britain, as has been said already tonight, for the extent of innovative and accessible transport schemes which these organisations facilitate. Many of these minibus drivers are women who gain a great deal of confidence and satisfaction from this voluntary work.
Community transport groups are rightly concerned that many voluntary drivers will be deterred from driving by the prospect of a more stringent test. The organisations themselves will be hard pressed to pay for the necessary training. Many of those organisations—and I must say this to the Government—are filling a gap left by Government underfunding in many cases, left by the deterioration in social service provision and, in rural areas in particular, by the collapse of public transport. These groups are already very short of money, and with the continuing squeeze on local authority finance most of these organisations——

Mr. David Harris: Is the hon. Lady aware that in many rural areas of Cornwall the number of bus services has increased as a result of deregulation? I agree with her that the voluntary sector provides a valuable additional service. If voluntary organisations were unable to provide that service, it would be a terrible blow to rural communities.

Ms. Ruddock: I understand that an examination of the provision of bus services in Cornwall showed that there had been a reduction in mileage.
I repeat that many of the community services are under pressure and are being called upon because of the reductions in public service transport. There is little prospect that the voluntary organisations, given their difficulties, will be able to find the money for extensive training.
The Minister said that we would not demonstrate understanding of the problem if we sought tonight to obtain a commitment from him simply to pay, but should the Minister be unsuccessful in his negotiations, and should additional training and testing of volunteer drivers be necessary, the Minister must give a commitment that


voluntary groups will not be faced with the additional cost and that local authorities will not be expected to pick up the bill.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: There has been no suggestion on either side of the House that it would be acceptable to impose a secondary statutory test. Even if the Government paid for all the additional testing, there would be fewer drivers, fewer voluntary minibuses and more people opting for cars, involving greater risk. In addition, more people would have to stay at home. They would lose their mobility. One part of Commissioner Emeritus's letter ought to be buried and never disinterred. Additional statutory testing of minibus drivers in the voluntary sector is not needed.

Ms. Ruddock: I am prepared to agree with the Minister, but he is not infallible. It will be a majority decision. We cannot be certain of the result.
We believe that safety should come first. The Minister began by quoting the relevant safety statistics for the minibus and the car. I believe that minibuses do not have as good a safety record as other forms of public transport. They are not as safe as public transport buses. I hope that the Minister will say that he supports greater efforts to reduce minibus accidents and that he will describe the steps that he intends to take to improve minibus safety if he continues to press for a derogation for voluntary minibus drivers from the new test.

Mr. Bottomley: Passengers in public service buses are more at risk—I suspect because of falls rather than because of crashes and collisions. People in the voluntary sector take great care of their passengers. I pay tribute to the fellow members of my own union who do much of the driving in the public sector and who have been involved in many of the developments in public transport services. I attended a branch meeting of my union this evening. All the time was spent on the dockers' centenary. No mention was made of the dock labour scheme.

Ms. Ruddock: In principle, we are not opposed to stricter medical tests for drivers who are responsible for the safety of other people or who are in charge of larger vehicles. However, the document specifies certain conditions, such as diabetes. That seems to preclude drivers from holding a passenger vehicle licence if they suffer from that condition. I am no expert in such matters, but it seems unnecessarily restrictive, and I would urge that medical conditions should not be specified in that way but should be left to professional opinion as to whether they constitute a safety risk for a particular individual. Perhaps the Minister will explain his understanding of that provision.
I shall comment briefly on two further aspects of the document—the proposals for motor cycles and the new requirements for people with disabilities. I am sure that the Minister and I share a deep concern about the accident statistics for motor cycles. As I frequently travel along the Old Kent road in heavy traffic, all too often I see how motorbike accidents occur. Furthermore, research by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory shows that the number of fatalities is higher on big machines than on smaller bikes. The Commission's proposal to introduce a test for 400 cc bikes and above appears attractive. Yet the same motor bike organisations which are supporting compulsory training as proposed in the Road Traffic Bill

are opposed to the new test. It would be helpful if the Minister could provide a little more detail about any consultation he has had on what he outlined as a compromise of passing the ordinary test and proceeding to ride a bigger vehicle on the basis of two years' experience.
Finally, I shall make a few comments about the proposal that people with disabilities would need to display on their licences any vehicle modifications or details of any artificial prostheses that they wear. I reinforce the Minister's point that that is a particularly offensive proposal. Any change in vehicle, vehicle technology or physical condition would have to be recorded, increasing the administrative burden. For that reason, I understand that the DVLC in Swansea is opposed to the proposal. How would it be enforced? Would people be stopped to check whether they have an artificial limb? Clearly it is nonsense. Why should disabled people be singled out in that way?
The Greater London Association for the Disabled opposes the measure because
It is personally intrusive and demeaning for drivers to be required to make public that sort of information on a document which is often used for identification and other general purposes".
I wholeheartedly agree. I support the Government in this matter, and, on what is perhaps an unusual occasion, in general we support the Government on the EC document.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I welcome the Government's objective to obtain satisfactory amendments to cover drivers of non-commercial and light goods vehicles. The EC proposal contains one of the most damaging spin-offs of European proposals for some time. The rigorous tests for voluntary drivers and the stringent medical requirements that would be required by the measure would have a devastating effect on the numbers of volunteers. At present, we rely on thousands of volunteers who are prepared to give up their time to drive minibuses for organisations and who would take a completely different view if they had to undergo difficult tests and medical inspections at frequent intervals.
I do not believe that the European Commission has taken into account the scale of this sector in the United Kingdom. There are 85,000 minibuses in Great Britain, which is way above the number to be found in other countries. Community transport in Britain alone makes some 10 million passenger journeys each year and 48 per cent. of all minibuses in Britain are used by voluntary organisations and private individuals. Without those voluntary services thousands of elderly and disabled people could become housebound, and many more would be denied their only chance to take part in recreational and sporting activities, to travel outside their homes and to take a holiday. Many thousands of organisations are totally dependent on the use of minibuses with voluntary drivers to transport their members to and from club activities, on outings and on holidays.
It may be helpful if I cite a few examples from my own constituency of organisations which rely on voluntary drivers. The Gravesend and Northfleet day centres, for instance, are local branches of Age Concern, which has thousands of branches up and down the country. Every day, buses collect old people from their homes and take them to the centres. Many of the drivers are retired, and in all cases they are volunteers. In my constituency there is


also the Meopham community bus, again driven by volunteers, half of whom are retired. They take local people shopping and link villages not served by scheduled buses. They also provide services to the old people's clubs in the area. Other examples of organisations which rely on voluntary drivers are the Helen Allison school, which serves autistic children, numerous parent-teacher associations, scout groups, Mencap, Cheshire homes and PHAB —Physically Handicapped and Able-bodied groups.
Who brought forward this extraordinary proposal? It was the then Transport Commissioner—a certain Stanley Clinton Davis, a former and unlamented Labour Member of this House. Mr. Clinton Davis was sent to Brussels, where he promptly went native and has since tried to regulate and regiment everyone from "Ballywhatnot" in the west to the Bosphorus in the east. I found in the Library a quite extraordinary letter from that former Commissioner to my hon. Friend the Minister. It certainly takes some reading. It accuses my hon. Friend of lobbying against these proposals, as though it were a disgraceful thing to lobby and to try to apply democratic pressure on behalf of people in this country. The former Commissioner went on to complain about the kind of people with whom the Minister was lobbying—the Mobility Alliance, an organisation bringing together the Community Transport Association, Help the Aged, Barnardo's, London Community Transport Association, the Lord's Taverners, the Variety Club, the National Union of Students and Youth Clubs (UK). These are all good organisations heavily dependent on minibuses with voluntary drivers, but it seems that they are all extremely suspect to Commissioner Emeritus Clinton Davis, who notes darkly in his extraordinary letter:
The Mobility Alliance is enjoying the active support of your Department.
His reference to "Mrs. Thatcher's Government" seems to imply some form of guilt by association. In his letter to my hon. Friend the Minister he also complains:
Any change of these proposals would be dangerous because they merely represent a road safety measure.
We heard this evening from the Minister exactly how safe our minibuses are by comparison. It may be of interest to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) if I refer to the recent Transport and Road Research Laboratory study, which found the accident rate for minibuses to be no higher than for cars and—this is of considerable significance—far lower than for buses.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: In this matter I have tried to be scrupulously fair, which is why I have not joined in the Clinton Davis bashing. He is a Right-wing Socialist and I am a Left-wing Tory, so perhaps we ought to be working together. The point about the bus statistics is that in general buses are working in inner city areas, where the crash rate is higher, whereas other vehicles tend to get out on to the motorways and other roads which are inherently safer. In dealing with the point that the hon. Lady raised, however, my hon. Friend is correct in saying that, overall, passengers in minibuses are safer than passengers using almost any other form of transport.

Mr. Arnold: I thank my hon. Friend for emphasising the point about safety, and I admire his restraint in not responding in kind to the letter from Commissioner Clinton Davis. The best that one can say of the

Commissioner's proposals is that they are bland and have not been thought through. The kindest interpretation is that this is a well-meaning measure that he intended to be his epitaph. It would perhaps be less kind to regard his letter, in particular, as making cheap party political points which I regret to say were echoed by the hon. Member for Deptford.
What we need to do now is to convince the new Commissioner to think the whole issue through again, and I call on my hon. Friend the Minister to get together with him and sort the whole thing out.

Mr. Richard Livsey: The EC document refers to the licences for drivers of European countries and the exchange of those licences, which is necessary as it will not only produce a common standard of driving, but will reduce bureaucracy. The standards of testing, however, should be the same throughout the Community because safety is vital.
The discrimination mentioned in the document regarding physically handicapped people and the testing of them is unfortunate and must be considered. Mobility for the physically handicapped is an important asset as it enables them to get round, to participate in the community and, therefore, to live a much more normal life.
The most important part of the document relates to minibuses. In many parts of Britain, particularly in rural areas, public transport is non-existent. In the past 10 years the Government have contributed to the abolition of public transport in many areas.
Half the 85,000 minibuses that operate in our communities are driven by volunteers. Such minibuses are vital to my community, to that represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and to other rural areas. Given the dependence on volunteer drivers in remote rural areas, it is unrealistic to say that such drivers must be tested unless they carry nine or fewer passengers.
In Brecon we have a disabled club which has 600 members. That club is served by six buses and they must cover a wide rural area. The elderly are brought to local towns once a week and the disabled are taken to centres and hospitals. Those people would be unable to live a civilised life without the service provided by the minibuses. Many small communities in my constituency now operate their own minibuses and they provide a flexible form of transport for people to visit market towns, their doctors and other essential destinations. Since the loss of support from the Manpower Services Commission, volunteers now play a much more important part in the operation of minibus services.
Before I entered the House I was a lecturer at an agricultural college, which had six minibuses. All the lecturers, myself included, used to drive students round the country to visit farms, factories, creameries and so on. We worked flexible hours and the students would have been denied the benefits derived from those visits if we had been unable to drive them. It is important to note that not too many restrictions were imposed on us. Other colleges, especially those that teach technical subjects, depend on their minibuses to get their students about. The issue of private contractors is not as simple as some hon. Members have suggested. In some cases part-time drivers assist


contractors in the evening to take out local people when there is a demand. That is a particular feature of remote rural areas.
I agree with the Minister about minibus services that assist the elderly and the disabled. Without such services and volunteer drivers, such people would be trapped. They would he unable to go shopping or to enjoy a day out. The mentally disabled would not be taken to places where they can enjoy themselves. This form of transport also enables children to visit the seaside and sports clubs to engage in competitive sports.
Post buses are important in remote areas, and I am not clear about the position of PSV licences and post bus drivers, many of whom drive royal mail vans. In the highlands and mid-Wales, the post buses run important services. Many of them are minibuses and are designed as such.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Does my hon. Friend agree that this debate provides the Minister with an opportunity to reflect on the extent to which post buses could help to compensate rural communities which are experiencing the downgrading or loss of local post offices? A mobile provision in such areas of the facilities to which my hon. Friend is referring could be of considerable help.

Mr. Livsey: That is right, and the post bus is a flexible tool in providing services to extremely remote areas. The concept could be developed further.
I hope that the points that hon. Members have made will be heeded by the Commission and that it will amend the instrument accordingly. The Government must press the issue hard at that level, and the Minister will appreciate that he has the support of Members in all parts of the House in that endeavour.

Mr. Roger King: The House is unanimous in stressing that the proposals are not satisfactory. I do not like retrospective legislation of any kind. Since gaining a driving licence at the age of 17, I have driven most categories of vehicles that that licence entitles me to drive, including minibuses and medium-sized goods vehicles of up to 7·5 tonnes gross vehicle weight.
Because of the peculiarities of British driving legislation, we have become one of the foremost producers of the 7·5 tonne truck, with the Ford Iveco cargo range and the Leyland Daf Roadrunner range, which are pre-eminent in this country. We export them in significant numbers throughout Europe because of the high demand for that type of vehicle, which a driver may drive on his normal driving licence and without having to take a special test.
I support what has been said, not just about minibuses but about the impact that this legislation may have on British manufacturers of minibuses and other commercial vehicles which hitherto we have been entitled to drive on our normal driving licences.
There will be a significant effect on the number of people entitled to drive minibuses if everyone must re-sit the driving test to enable them to drive that type of vehicle. The list of requirements in the instrument to enable one to drive a minibus is awesome indeed. For example, paragraph 5(2) on page 27 states:

Drivers of vehicles in these categories must demonstrate a knowledge and sound understanding of the fields set out below".
There follow a number of subjects in which the would-be driver must be knowledgeable, whether or not the vehicle is equipped with the items involved. If one wants to drive a Freight Rover Sherpa van or a Ford Transit minibus, one must know about the effect of wind on the course of the vehicle, rules on vehicle weights and dimensions, driving hours, rest periods and use of tachographs, the principles of braking systems and speed governors. We are talking about the driver of a minibus. He must also know about precautions to be taken when overtaking because of the dangers of splashing spray or mud. He must know how to read a road map and be capable of checking power-assisted braking and steering systems, which are unlikely to be found on such vehicles. He must know how to use various braking systems and a speed governor, which may be fitted but is unlikely to be.
If category D of the driving test has to be taken before a person may drive a minibus, much new information will be needed by the applicant before he can take the driving test. That alone makes nonsense of that category. The heading "Knowledge" on page 22 is rather intriguing because paragraph 2·2 demands that the applicant for a driving test must have a knowledge of
mechanical aspects with a bearing on road safety; in particular they must be sufficiently familiar with, and be able to put right, the most common faults in the steering system, tyres, lights and direction indicators, reflectors, rear-view mirrors, windscreen washers and wipers, the exhaust system and seat-belts;".
One's mind can run amok on this. What about replacing king pins on the front steering arms of a vehicle? Perhaps one's wife could do it because her licence indicates that she is able to do it. That is nonsense if for no other reason than it is hopelessly impractical to expect any normal person seeking a driving licence to be able to put those items right. Common sense should tell people that something is wrong, but it is nonsense to expect them to have to put matters right. I suggest that something has gone wrong in the translation of the document because I cannot believe that what it says is correct.
We understand that in the new arrangements the theory part of the driving test will be much more elaborate than that which we are used to in the United Kingdom. Generally, the principle has been for the person being tested to pull up by the side of the road and be asked three or four questions by the examiner on the "Highway Code". I am not sure about the present procedure, but I doubt whether it is any different from what I have suggested.
The proposals suggest that the theory test will be more elaborate than that. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will say whether he intends this to be a written examination to be taken before a practical driving test. The number of items on which people will be tested on theory precludes the side-of-the-road verbal test arrangement that has been the hallmark of the British driving test for as long as it has been taking place.
Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether we are to move towards a theoretical element in the driving test. I would not object to such a test because a case can be made for more emphasis on theory. If that means a written test, I would not argue against it.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: In the light of the directive it is sensible to review what we do. It is important to realise


that any theoretical examination of the driving test in this and other countries shows that we have the simplest driving testing system and that it leads to the safest driving. We should try to avoid having a sort of GCSE in driving. We want people to be able to negotiate the streets without hitting other people and injuring themselves or others.

Mr. King: I entirely agree. Experience shows that we have produced above-average drivers. Our good record on accidents—high and unacceptable as it is—seems to establish Britain as capable of training and testing its drivers to a high standard. There are grounds for suggesting that we can sub-categorise some of the categories for driving tests and that we can continue with the present arrangements for at least five years at which time the Commission will probably have the right to look again at whether we should all come together in a common cause throughout the European Community.
So things may not be as black as they are painted. But this is very much the thin end of the wedge and I support what my hon. Friend has said, and more power to his elbow in ensuring that we get a sensible result from what at the moment is a rather impracticable solution.

Mr. Garry Waller: As many hon. Members have already said, our standards in this country are high and our casualty rate, although far too high still, is lower than that of other European countries. I believe that our approach, certainly as set out by my hon. Friend the Minister, is that we should not be prepared to compromise our standards in any way. I am delighted that he adopts considerable rigour in fighting our corner over the issue of minibuses and I give him my full support. I do not think there is any need for me to say any more about it because my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and other hon. Members have spoken at some length on the subject.
There is concern in this country about the issue of interchangeability of the driving licence. I think that many people feel that it might be possible for an individual to escape the consequences of bad driving in the United Kingdom, or anywhere else for that matter, by obtaining a driving licence elsewhere in the Community, perhaps in that member state where obtaining a licence is easiest, and using it permanently here. I am sure that our approach must be that our standards must be maintained, and because we have this system of penalty points and endorsements there may be difficulties in moving towards harmonisation. In doing so we must be prepared to say that our standards are those to which others should aspire, and we should not be prepared to lower ours.
I want to say a few words about the proposals relating to motor cycles because it is in that respect that the directive seems to be particularly half-baked. Let me remind the House of what is proposed.
The proposals are, first, the creation of a separate licence for motor cycles over 400 cc—a level which can also be equated in terms of engine power—not to be granted until the applicant has held a licence for motor cycles under 400 cc for two years; secondly, the creation of a separate test for such a licence; and, thirdly, the requirement that all tests for a motor cycle licence should

be taken on a motor cycle of a capacity of the class of motor cycle that the applicant will become entitled to ride by virtue of obtaining that licence.
The distinction between motor cycles under 400 cc and those over 400 cc is really not justified. The statement which the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) made about the higher casualty rate among riders of large motor cycles was a little simplistic. The situation is much more complex than she suggested. I do not believe that there is strong evidence that there is a higher casualty rate among riders of cycles over 400 cc. There may be a higher casualty rate for riders of motor cycles over, say, 125 cc, but it is much more complex when one comes to a higher figure.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: It is the earliest weeks and months of motor cycling that are the most dangerous and therefore the greatest risk is on lower powered machines. Our licensing system takes account of that. Once people get to a certain age and maturity, the safety improves, which is why a hell's angel of my sort of age is much safer on a 600 cc bike than someone 20 years younger on a lower powered machine. But I believe there is something in what both my hon. Friend and the hon. Lady are saying.

Mr. Waller: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. That is why I am so worried about the proposal. It seems to me that introducing the extra tier will constitute a diversion of funding and resources from the training and testing of all motor cyclists during the vital period of their first six months on the road. That should be where we concentrate our effort rather than on moving towards an extra tier. By moving towards an extra higher tier, and requiring those who have already qualified to ride motor cycles of 125 cc or more to pass another test later in their motor cycling career, when they are less dangerous, is bound to damage what should be our primary objective.
Considerable evidence was provided in this country for the Transport and Road Research Laboratory by Broughton last year, in West Germany by Koch in 1987 and in Denmark by Carstensen also in 1987, which failed to find any correlation between machine size and accident involvement. So we should be careful before we plump for the kind of proposals which the Commission has adopted, which seem to be based on evidence what is at the very least dubious.
The other practical aspect on which I should like to concentrate is the requirement which appears in the draft directive to take a test on a strange higher capacity machine to gain the qualification to ride it. That seems to be based on the system for learning to ride motor cycles in other countries. Most other member states do not grant provisional driving licences for motor cycles or other vehicles. They have only a single system of a full driving licence. People in member states with such regimes prepare for the full driving licence by completing a specified number of hours' instruction with an authorised driving school. Then they take a driving test; if they pass, a full licence is granted to them. Some people may feel that that system is better than ours, but it appears from the evidence that there is quite a lot to commend our system.
It is notable that, except when undergoing tuition with a driving school, persons may not drive on the road prior to being granted a full driving licence. The Commission's proposals relating to motor cycle testing are suited to what might be described as the driving school regime, where


people possibly hire machines. The provisions are not suited to the British position where a rider takes a test on his own machine, after an introductory off-road session.
The proposals in the draft directive may be counter-productive. The combination of on-road experience and instructor tuition on the rider's own machine has been shown to be more beneficial than off-road testing on a strange machine. The latter often becomes little more than coaching to pass a test. It seems crazy to expect someone to hire a motor cycle to pass a test before he acquiries his own machine. The alternative system does not seem to be suited to the way in which we conduct training and testing. I hope that my hon. Friend will press for the Commission to reconsider that proposal and take account of our system.
I should like my hon. Friend to answer another question. The consultation paper circulated by his Department on 17 March contained under its description of article 4 the following wording:
Sub-categories for motorcyclists not exceeding 400 ccs, exceeding 400 ccs and light motorcycles not exceeding 125 ccs may be provided.
There seems to be some confusion. It is not clear whether that is a mandatory or discretionary proposal. In some translations the word "may" is replaced by the word "shall". In the most recent versions the word "shall" predominates.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am not sure whether that is certain. We want to opt for "may". If there is this power or cubic capacity limitation, experience generates a greater degree of safety and that would be more suitable and preferable to requiring more motor cyclists to take another test.

Mr. Waller: I am glad to learn that my hon. Friend the Minister is in favour of a discretionary provision, and I would entirely support that. It would be right for us to adopt our procedure which may differ from that in other countries. I hope that that matter will be clarified, and if there is any doubt I trust that my hon. Friend will press for the directive to take account of what we do in this country.
I support my hon. Friend the Minister's general approach to this matter. We can be proud of the practical steps that we have taken to reduce road casualties, although there is still an enormous amount to be done. We should be willing to consider trading up where necessary if other countries do things that are worthy of consideration. However, we should absolutely refuse to trade down merely for the sake of unnecessary harmonisation if that involves sacrificing road safety in this country.

Mr. Bowen Wells: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on bringing this measure to the House at an early date to obtain the views of hon. Members. On this occasion it is the unanimous view of hon. Members that the directive should be seriously amended before it is brought before the Council of Ministers for decision. I support my hon. Friend the Minister, as have all other hon. Members, in his stand on minibuses. The directive clearly fails the test of safety because travelling in motor cars, the obvious alternative in the voluntary sector, would be more dangerous. It also fails the test of practicability.
I want to suggest a way in which my hon. Friend the Minister should approach the matter so that he does not

need the derogation to which the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) referred. Article 100A applies to measures designed to create a single market. Therefore, we need not become involved in licensing minibuses which do not cross frontiers or take part in trade between nations in the European Community. It cannot be necessary to harmonise those licences to create a single market.
I venture to suggest that the same applies to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) about motor cycles. Generally speaking, they are not part of the trading system between nations. There seems to be very little reason why there should be a harmonised basis for motor cycle licensing.
When the Minister argues these matters in Brussels, we should opt for local and country variations to remain and not be interfered with by the directive. In that way the directive could be made much simpler and we could rely on the testing and licensing method of each country and only legislate a European point of view from when matters affect cross-border trade, as was envisaged by the creation of the power in article 100A to make legislation for creating a single market.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am very grateful for the support of the House. I suspect that the House will be returning to these issues not simply on Thursday when we debate a dissociated Bill, but as we move forward in our discussions in the European Parliament which has not entirely disposed of these matters. I hope that in its plenary session the European Parliament will find a way to declare that it will support only measures that maintain or enhance safety and mobility. Its consideration of the draft directive and its advice will then be more welcome than if it were simply the people of Europe who were speaking.
The general conformity of licensing is welcome. In a way this kind of debate tends to focus on areas of disagreement. It is like some of the meetings of the Council of Ministers where people come together to disagree instead of explicitly saying that there are gains. In this measure there are gains for those with vocational licences where the ease of recognition and showing what qualifications have been obtained are important.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) made some important points. I welcome his support, particularly on minibuses. We would not want to take forward his suggestion if we could avoid it because we want conformity and recognition.
Let me build on the point that my hon. Friend was making that within the aim of conformity we should have some flexibility and respect for the traditions of each country. Britain will not unnecessarily try to force other countries to give up what works for them if we think that it provides a reasonable standard of protection for other member countries. That is the principle that should increasingly be adopted.
I am encouraged by Commissioner Karel van Miert who will want to bring together the expertise within the EC to try to work together on matters which do not necessarily require legislation but which can improve safety and mobility. I take great comfort from the fact that in 1987 we had the lowest number of road casualties for 34


years. In the two or three years before that there was no change in law. It was a new awareness that made the big difference. That is one way forward in Europe as well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) talked about the casualty rate, which is unacceptably high. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set a target of reducing the number of those killed or seriously injured by one third by the year 2000. He will shortly be announcing the figures for 1988, which will be of interest to the House. My hon. Friend is right to point to the fact that it is the results that matter, not the theory of what in an ideal world the provisions would amount to. What will happen on the road? Will more people be killed? Will fewer people be injured ? Can more people move around? Those are the issues that really matter. My hon. Friend made that point clearly in relation to motor cycles.
I welcome the alliance of motor cycle interests that we have created on training. That will be of enormous value. We are beginning to create a culture among motor cyclists which will transfer the experience and the defensive riding techniques of the mature motor cyclist more often and faster to the younger motor cyclist who is so dramatically at risk.
I said at the beginning that to travel a mile or a kilometre by motor-cycle is 65 times more dangerous than travelling as a passenger in a minibus. That illustrates the extent of the problem. As my hon. Friend said, whatever is right or wrong on the 400 cc motor bike, or whatever it may be, whether it is a "may" or a "shall"—he appeared to lean more toward "shall" but we shall argue for the "may"—it is for the smaller machine for the younger cyclist that we must make the change.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) is an expert in most motoring interests. I am delighted that the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has agreed to a meeting where we could take the manufacturers' interests into Europe. Most people in mainland Europe cannot understand that we have 85,000 minibuses in Britain, of which 60,000 to 70,000 are non-commercial minibuses in the voluntary sector. They cannot understand that we have 11,000 minibuses with lifts to take wheelchairs. That is incomprehensible to other countries. If the system as negotiated by Commissioner Emeritus Clinton Davis allowed the development of the voluntary minibus sector, there would be minibuses throughout Europe for scout groups, organisations for the elderly or students and people who want to go on a pub crawl while the driver stays on the wagon. That would be common throughout Europe, but it is not, because the regime that has been suggested does not work. People would be condemned to stay at home or use cars and neither is desirable.
My hon. Friend also spoke of the Mobility Alliance. It is important for the Government to go on working with the voluntary sector. One thing that we have learnt from local government is that it is possible to work with the voluntary sector to help it. Many county councils have done that. They have said that they do not need a monopoly of the public bus service but want to try to achieve a spectrum of provision to come together and make possible more mobility for those around them.
I pay tribute to the training schemes that many voluntary organisations run. No one should believe that

most of the major voluntary organisations take people off the street, give them a key to a minibus and ask them to drive 14 people around one weekend a month. Many voluntary organisations provide very professional training schemes and reassure themselves that their drivers know how to cope with their passengers, their vehicle, and the traffic.
Commissioner Clinton Davis remarked that because minibuses are longer—often much longer—than cars, their drivers should be required to take the public service vehicle test. The truth is that a car such as the Peugeot 505 family estate is longer than any minibus capable of carrying 14 people. Also, if a licence holder is permitted to drive a van of certain dimensions without being required to undergo a special driving test, why should he be obliged to do so to drive a minibus on the same wheelbase? That does not make sense, and most people understand that now.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) spoke of the importance of handicapped people being allowed to drive vehicles, because otherwise they would be condemned not to share in the community. I pay tribute to MAVIS—the mobility advisory centre at Crowthorne in Berkshire—and to the other advice centres serving the handicapped who drive themselves. I pay tribute also to those who established and have kept going Motability, which makes individual driving possible for many people to whom it was denied before. I pay further tribute to Motability's unleaded petrol campaign, which did so much to wake many of us up to the fact that we were unnecessarily pumping lead into the air, which may harm the development of children.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) helped by providing support across the Chamber for what we are trying to achieve. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) spoke specifically about the letter that I sadly received from the ex-Commissioner. On balance, it is probably right of me not to reply to my hon. Friend in detail. The points made by the Commissioner emeritus were wrong. They misinterpreted the Government's intentions and the unity of the Mobility Alliance delegation. Some of the correspondence in The Guardian made it plain that Socialist councillors from London boroughs wanted to keep politics out of it, and I go along with that. It is better to sacrifice political advantage and to ensure that we continue representing the interests of those with special needs, whether or not they are handicapped.
The arguments concerning motor cycles revolve on the question of training more than anything else—though engine capacity is also important. I do not go along with all of the interpretations of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley in respect of the Broughton studies. Nevertheless, we can probably work together and reach agreement. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford spoke about moving the administration of vocational licensing from traffic area offices to Swansea. There are about 30 million ordinary licence holders. It is necessary to hold such a licence before one can hold a licence to drive a lorry or bus. There are about I million vocational drivers who are PSV or HGV licence holders.
It is sensible to handle that work at Swansea, where ordinary licence details are already held on computer. That should lead to a better and faster service for vocational drivers. It is important to recognise that, as a consequence of shifting that work to Swansea, there will be greater demands made of the staff there and less of the staff


at traffic area offices. It follows naturally that that is the way it goes. I pay tribute to the staff at Swansea, who have lifted their efficiency far higher than most of British industry. Efficiency is the ally of compassion rather than its enemy. We should not judge how good a service is just by the number of staff employed to provide it.
As to general licensing, even under the Commission's draft proposals, existing driver rights will be preserved in respect of medium-size group vehicles and for minibuses used non-commercially.
On the driving test, we and other member states challenged the relevance to safety of including in the proposed syllabus map reading, repairs and other aspects mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield. We do not understand the proposals requiring a move towards a written test. We shall probably have to ask a few more oral questions as part of our current testing arrangements.
The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) asked about the upper age limit for lorry drivers. The Bill that we shall debate on Thursday does not prescribe an upper age limit for lorry drivers. Those aged over 65 will have to renew their licences each year, and produce a medical certificate on renewal. If the directive is adopted, other member states such as Italy—which the hon. Gentleman mentioned—will have to recognise our arrangements. That is a move forward. I do not want to be too diverted by post buses, but if they are used for hire or reward they will need to be driven by someone with a public service vehicle licence. The directive would not change that.
If we can obtain a change of heart from those Members of the European Parliament who fell on the side of Clinton Davis in December—if they acknowledge the safety and mobility points, and that is confirmed by Stanley Clinton Davis—it will be much easier to work with the openness of the new Commissioner, Karel van Miert, and his staff. We could then work out an arrangement that would be satisfactory to the European Parliament, agreed by the Council of Ministers and confirmed by the Commission as leading to better safety and mobility.
These are the points on which we rest our case and I hope that the House will pass the motion as an indication that, throughout the country, we support these aims as we consider the draft directive.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 10357/1/88 on driver licensing; and endorses the Government's objective of negotiating satisfactory amendments with respect to the drivers of non-commercial minibuses and light goods vehicles, drivers from other Member States resident in the United Kingdom, and disabled drivers.

Leeds Urban Development Corporation

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Mr. Derek Fatchett: When the Government first announced their intention to establish a series of urban development corporations throughout the country, the main reason given was that the areas to be covered by the UDCs would, at that stage, be suffering from a lack of investment and development. That was never the case in Leeds. If there was an argument for a UDC in the Government's own terms in other cities, that has never been and is not now the case for Leeds, which is enjoying probably the most substantial growth of any city outside the south-east. There are those who claim that Leeds, under its Labour-controlled authority, has now become the country's second city, and there are many people in Leeds who would regard it as the first rather than the second city.
When establishing the UDCs, one of the Governmen t's suggestions was that they perceived some animosity between the local authority and the private sector. That has never been the case in Leeds, which is a success city as a result of the partnership which has developed between the Labour-controlled city council and the private sector. That success and partnership have enabled the city council to attract investment and to bring about the rebirth and renaissance of the city centre and much of my constituency.
My first point, which is not necessarily central to this debate but needs to go on record, is that if there was ever any justification for a UDC, it could not be justified in Leeds. Under the previous council leader, councillor Mudie, and now under councillor Tricket, Leeds city council has enjoyed much success, taking it beyond the necessity of establishing a UDC.
The Government's motives and their objectives for the UDC were far more sinister, manipulative and political. The Tories in Leeds know that they have no chance of ever gaining control, but it is essential for Tory patronage, influence and organisation to have some quangos appointed by Government and made up of placemen appointed by Government. That is why a proposal was made for a housing action trust, why we have the task force and why the urban development corporation came about—as part of a much larger agenda to subvert the city council and local democracy. It was a recognition by the Minister of his party's failure to attract votes in local elections in Leeds. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) may find that amusing, but he will not want to make any bets with me about the date when the Conservatives take control of Leeds city council as it will he a long time before that happens.
There was no need for a UDC, but we now have one in Leeds, and we recognise that it has a potential contribution to make. We hope that it will behave in a socially responsible way, and part of its social responsibility is to consult local business and residents and to be part of the city's government in partnership rather than opposition.
The UDC should ensure that its decisions are open to public scrutiny and subject to the maximum involvement


of local community organisations and local business. That is crucial because people and business in Leeds have a right to know what is happening.
We are discussing major issues that will affect the future of Leeds and its residents for many years. An example of the importance of its decisions is the possible development by Triple Five, a Canadian organisation that has already held talks with the city council and the UDC. According to a UDC press release, the scheme could be worth more than £3 billion. It is a major investment of such significance that it could change the shape of the south central area of Leeds for many years to come. I am not making a judgment on the scheme, but I am asking that the UDC's involvement in it be open so that the public know what is likely to happen and can comment on the way in which it develops.
Another example is the road scheme for the Richmond hill area of my constituency, which is important for local residents and business. It is important that when the UDC, as the planning authority for the area, puts forward proposals for the development of the road scheme it recognises the legitimate interests of local residents, who have a right to know what the UDC intends. Nobody in the area affected by the UDC's proposals is yet aware of them. I am aware of them because information has begun to be leaked that the UDC is thinking of building a road down East street—on stilts at points—which is probably the worst environmental scheme that could be conceived for the area. There has been no consultation or discussion with local residents. That is not the way in which the Minister would go about his business; it is not the way that the UDC should go about its business.

Dr. Keith Hampson: If one considers the Kirkstall valley scheme, there is no evidence that the UDC is trying to bypass local community views. Its strategy and proposals are well known to the community and council, and two councillors serve on it. The hon. Gentleman has not shown why, apart from the overall strategy, which should be public knowledge, its detailed scrutiny of often confidential matters should be in the goldfish bowl of public debate.

Mr. Fatchett: I have already shown that there are important schemes, substantial investment, and substantial local interest involved. I am not saying, and never have, that sensitive commercial interests should be made public. Nobody is saying that, but everybody who has been involved in local government—and I presume that the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West knows the nature of the rules in local government—will recognise that there is secrecy in commercial interest. I recognise that; I am not asking for that.
In relation to the road scheme, there has been no discussion whatsoever with local residents. There is no commercial interest that stops that discussion, and it is that degree of participation and openness that I am asking for, a basic minimum. The hon. Gentleman, by his reaction, understands the point I am making. There is a potential degree of consensus there, and I hope that the Minister recognises that.
There is, besides the right to know, a need for openness on the part of the UDC. If it is not open, given the scale of the projects with which it is dealing, there is always an

argument that there is some lack of legitimacy attributed to the decisions taken by it. Openness gives legitimacy, as does consultation. I would not for a moment suggest that corruption surrounds the UDC. That is not the nature of my accusation. However, if the UDC is open and allows consultation, there is never any question of corruption because we know what is going on. If there is secrecy, it builds up a suspicion that there may be corruption around the organisation. In the UDC's own interest, there is a need for openness. So there are two reasons suggesting that the UDC should change its current practices: the right to know, and the need for openness.
The UDC makes a number of points in its own defence, but one defence it cannot use is that it is the planning authority; if the planning decisions were taken by local government, Leeds city council, these decisions would be subject to the Local Government (Access to Information Act) 1985. It is a strange paradox that, if there is a major or minor planning decision to be taken by the Leeds city council, that would be open as per the normal practices of local government. If there is a major or minor planning decision to be taken by the UDC, it will be taken behind closed doors. I see no justification whatsoever for that.
The Minister may say that the legislation does not provide for that access or openness in relation to the UDC. I recognise that, but I also say that the London Docklands UDC already allows openness; it allows journalists to be present at certain meetings, and it allows the public to be present. The Sheffield UDC is moving in exactly the same direction. I hope that the Minister will use his influence and powers to ensure that the Leeds UDC moves further in that direction.
A further argument made by the UDC is that openness —what the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West called "the goldfish bowl"—leads to inefficiency, but the fact that emerges from the evidence which has come into my possession is that the UDC is itself inefficient. Its secrecy does not breed efficiency; I suspect that its secrecy compounds inefficiency.
Let me give one or two examples. A firm called South Leeds Builders Merchants Ltd. received a letter from the UDC saying, without consultation or discussion, that that business would be subject to compulsory purchase. That is neither efficient nor the way in which the UDC should behave. The company secretary wrote to his own solicitor and kindly sent me a copy of his letter. I quote from Mr. Foster's letter:
To say I am astounded would be an understatement, as you would have thought that someone at The Leeds Development Corporation would have had the decency to forewarn, explain or indeed just discuss the plans affecting our premises and livelihood.
That inefficiency was recognised by Mr. Martin Eagland, the chief executive of Leeds urban development corporation. He replied on 21 March 1989 to Mr. Foster, the company secretary of South Leeds Builders Merchants Ltd., and made the following point:
I do apologise for the fact that you received no prior warning of the Development Corporation's intention to compulsorily acquire the freehold interest in the … site".
The Leeds urban development corporation ought to have talked to a company that it was about to make the subject of a compulsory purchase order.
Another example is Chapman Springs, a well-established engineering firm in south Leeds. It is now the subject of a compulsory purchase order without consultation, participation and information. From time to time a


number of hon. Members find it convenient to criticise the Post Office or British Telecom. They may feel that that was the reason why the Leeds urban development corporation was unable to talk to either South Leeds Builders Merchants Ltd. or Chapman Springs. Both firms are sited within 100 yd of the UDC's offices. I suspect that Mr. Peter Hartley, the chairman, and Mr. Martin Eagland, the chief executive, pass both firms on their way to and from the UDC's offices. A simple courtesy would have been to talk to the two firms. Jobs in two local businesses are at stake. One of the firms wrote to me and said that the Conservative Government pride themselves on their interest in small businesses, so it is difficult to understand how they can allow one of their organisations—the UDC —to behave in such a way.
Secrecy in the UDC has not bred efficiency. All the evidence suggests that secrecy has bred inefficiency. So far, the UDC's record is a catalogue of inefficiency and secrecy. For the sake of what I believe is important—the continuing development of Leeds—and for the most constructive relationship that is possible between local business. local residents and the city council, I ask the Minister to use his influence with the UDC to ensure that it conducts its business openly and does not continue with its current hole-in-the-wall approach. Such an approach will damage the work of the UDC and local business in Leeds. It is important that openness should be one of the UDC's characteristics. I hope that the Minister will join me in that campaign.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): I welcome the interest of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) in the subject. I congratulate him sincerely on securing this Adjournment debate. I welcome the valuable contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) to which I shall return later.
The hon. Member for Leeds, Central has already tabled a number of written questions about the UDC's responsibility for planning. I have been pleased to inform him about the very satisfactory progress being made in Leeds. I thought that his summary of the reasons for establishing the Leeds urban development corporation stretched credulity to breaking point.
If the hon. Gentleman wants to know precisely why the Government established an urban development corporation in Leeds, he could do no better than to read a pamphlet called "New Life for Inner Cities" which I wrote and which has recently been released. Unfortunately, I cannot give a copy to the hon. Gentleman. It costs £2·50, which I consider to be good value for money. That money will go to the Conservative party. We are always grateful for any contributions that we can get—certainly from Labour Members of Parliament.
The best illustration that I can give of why the Government set up an urban development corporation in Leeds relates to a meeting that I had with the former leader of Leeds city council, whom I have always liked, councillor George Mudie. He told me of the progress that had been made over the Leeds development company, with which the hon. Gentleman will be familiar. That is the longest gestation period known to man. It had been talked about for four years, and it had been in formation for three years. I asked councillor Mudie when he would appoint a chief

executive and he said, "Soon". It is crass stupidity for the hon. Gentleman to describe to me and to the House anything to do with the UDC as a catalogue of inefficiency when we have such an example.
The Government believed that things should move a little more speedily than they have in the urban regeneration for the centre of Leeds. As the hon. Member knows, I visited the development corporation only last month. I was impressed by the way the corporation has started to implement the proposals contained in the strategic plan which it published last October. Land is being brought forward for development in partnership with the other agencies; environmental improvements are under way, and I know the corporation has the needs of both new and existing businesses uppermost in its mind. Those are no mean achievements for a corporation which has been in existence for only nine months. If not now, I hope that at some time in the future the hon. Gentleman will become as enthusiastic about what is being achieved on the ground in his home city as he seems to be about the procedures required to bring that about.
Before I reply to the more specific points which the hon. Gentleman has raised, the House may find it helpful ill say something about how the UDCs operate and relate that to what the hon. Gentleman has said.
UDCs have been set up by the Government as single-minded bodies. Their remit is to regenerate rundown urban areas by bringing land and buildings back into use and creating new businesses, jobs, an improved environment, new homes, recreation and leisure facilities. Already they are doing that, and in my view they are doing it very well. But UDCs are not local authorities, and they are not funded through the rating system. The arrangements established to ensure that local authorities are accountable to the local electorate are not therefore applicable. UDCs are funded largely by the Exchequer and they are accountable to Parliament through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. They are subject to a fairly formidable array of procedures, which includes the Select Committee and Public Accounts Committee systems, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, and the Local Government Act 1988 which brought UDCs' planning activities within the ambit of the Commissioner for Local Administration—the local ombudsman. Each UDC produces an annual report, including a copy of its audited statement of accounts, which is laid before both Houses. Hon. Members will appreciate that those are just some of the arrangements which exist to safeguard accountability to Parliament, but it might help if I explain that when carrying out their development control functions all UDCs are required to operate in the same way as any other planning authority That includes an obligation to carry out consultations and determine applications as laid down in the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988. The list of possible consultees, on any application, can be lengthy. It can include, for example, a local authority, the highway authority, the water authority, and the waste disposal authority.
Most UDCs have established agency arrangements whereby local authority staff receive and process planning applications. That hardly equates with charges of operating in secret, and perhaps more than anything else shows that, behind the rhetoric, co-operative and mutually beneficial working arrangements can and do exist between UDCs and local authorities, and I welcome that.


Councillor George Mudie persuaded me that in this context the Leeds city council should act as a planning agency for the UDCs. Apart from that, as the hon. Gentleman knows, at the time I was convinced that it was quite fair and proper that there should be a number of Labour party councillors appointed to the board.

Mr. Fatchett: The Minister talks in detail about the development control procedures, but one or two of my examples concern broader planning and development matters. I talked about the road scheme and about Chapman Springs in relation to the development of a business park. Those schemes are not covered by the development controls. They are the schemes that should be the subject of much greater consultation and much greater public scrutiny. If the Minister is prepared to persuade his colleagues in the UDC to move in that direction, we are beginning to move towards a consensus, but in relation to the road scheme, for instance, that involves the UDC recognising that my constituents, at a very early stage, have a legitimate voice.

Mr. Trippier: I should say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West was very relevant to this case, though I do not think there could be any possible criticism of the consultation that took place. Time permitting, I shall refer to that matter again. Certainly I want to see urban development corporations consulting local people. That is very important if we are to see this form of urban regeneration in that area. If the people themselves do not recognise that that form of urban regeneration is an improvement and that it will benefit them and the area as a whole, clearly the whole policy will have failed. On that matter there is a meeting of minds.
I do not know specifically about the case of the road network. Obviously I am not directly responsible for the Department of Transport. However, in an effort to be helpful, I shall look at the matter. I am anxious to convince the hon. Member that the UDC is very keen to consult, as are all UDCs. There may have been mistakes, particularly in the case of what I call the first-generation UDCs. One hopes that one can learn from mistakes, and that there will be improvements. But in the case of the second and third-generation UDCs it is perfectly clear that it is a necessary prerequisite for successful urban regeneration that they should carry the local communities with them.
Of course, circumstances vary from area to area. No two areas are the same, and no two UDCs are the same. It is therefore right that they should have discretion to organise themselves in the best way to achieve positive results. I must stress that all UDCs are well seized of the importance of carrying local opinion with them. Many UDC chairmen and chief executives spend a considerable amount of their time addressing public meetings up and down the urban development areas. I have indicated that I do not for a moment suggest that they have got everything absolutely right; I am not that stupid. It is always easy to find fault from the sidelines, as the hon.

Gentleman has sought to do. It would be wrong of the Government to be too prescriptive about the way in which the UDCs carry out their business, as the hon. Member and certainly the Campaign for Freedom of Information would suggest. I believe that that is a matter for the UDCs to decide, with the overall arrangements that I have already described.

Mr. Fatchett: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Trippier: I want to make a final point because we are running out of time.
A number of decisions will have to be made by the UDCs—decisions that certainly would be commercially confidential. As the hon. Gentleman made a number of political points—and I realise that he might have felt obliged to do so—may I make one important political point from my party's point of view? I find it a bit difficult to take it when any member of the Labour party talks about secrecy or about excluding the press from meetings. My experience in local government—which, I am glad to say, is pretty long—is that the Labour party is the first to exclude the press from meetings of this kind. I am sure that that experience is shared by my hon. Friends.

Mr. Fatchett: The Minister might be reassured to know that Leeds city council won an award for its willingness to open up and to disclose information. So, in this respect, it is a model authority. The Minister argues that he does not want to be prescriptive. He knows the position taken by the docklands corporation, and he knows the position that Sheffield is likely to take. Will he give the Leeds UDC some indication that it would make sense to move in the same direction as its sister UDCs in docklands and in Sheffield?

Mr. Trippier: The Leeds city council has won an award for openness. I only wish that it had won an award for speed of inner city regeneration through the Leeds Development Company. I accept that a number of urban development corporations provide the type of access that the hon. Gentleman seeks for the Leeds UDC, and the London Docklands UDC is undoubtedly one. Certainly I shall be very happy to draw to the attention of the chairman and the board of the Leeds UDC the matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised this evening, but I repeat that the Department does not wish in any way to be prescriptive in this regard. It is entirely a matter for the UDC. I personally feel that in practice there can be little or no difficulty, in view of the representation on the board not only from the hon. Gentleman's party but from the private sector, which he was quick to mention.
I emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West that there will be quite a number of interested parties in Leeds whose best interests might not be served by knowing too much about the confidential matters that are discussed before the board. That is a matter of judgment, principally for the board.
I hope that in future the hon. Member for Leeds, Central will find himself able to support the Leeds UDC and the work that it does to regenerate that vitally important city.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Two o'clock.